Sitting of 21 February 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITIONS

  Skye (Toll Bridge)
  9.34 am
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I beg leave to present a petition signed by more than 3,000 of my constituents of Skye and Lochalsh district expressing their opposition to the proposed private toll-funded bridge to Skye by means of high private tolls.
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will recognise that the imposition of high tolls would be a discriminatory act against an already disadvantaged community, leaving no practical alternative means of crossing available, as is the case with users of toll-road bridges elsewhere in Scotland.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Balligan House, Bangor
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I beg leave to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents who strenuously oppose, as I do, the closure of Balligan house for the mentally handicapped, situated in Bangor in my constituency.
  The Eastern health board intends to eject the mentally handicapped residents who have come to look on Balligan house as their home and have formed an attachment to an extremely dedicated staff. The board will disperse them in all directions, regardless of their wishes and needs.
  The petitioners pray
  That your honourable House will appeal to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to intervene to stop the threatened closure. Balligan house for the mentally handicapped accommodates 14 residents in a happy, stable and homely atmosphere. The closure of Balligan house for the mentally handicapped would be an extreme act of callousness and unfair to the mentally handicapped residents and staff, who together form a big happy family.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Lang and Mr. John Maples, presented a Bill to make further provision for friendly societies; to provide for the cessation of registration under the Friendly Societies Act 1974; to make provision about disputes involving friendly societies or other bodies registered under the Friendly Societies Act 1974 and about the functions of the Chief Registrar of friendly societies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 24 February and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
Orders of the Day

  Referendum Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent signified.]
  9.37 am
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill requires a national referendum as a pre-condition of the ratification of certain treaties. The essential thrust of the Bill is contained in the 65 words of the first clause, which provides that a referendum should be called in the event that the powers of this House to regulate the affairs of this country are diminished.
  To calm the disquiet of some, may I make an observation about what the referendum does not do. It does not call into question legislation that has already passed the House. Therefore, the original Communities legislation is not at risk, nor is the amendment to that original legislation which we commonly know as the Single European Act. The referendum would refer and relate specifically and only to those events that take place after the passing of this Bill.
  The Maastricht treaties, which are central to the concentration of our ideas on what we are discussing, signify a further significant transfer of powers from this country and the ability of Members of this House to regulate the affairs of our people. It is an extraordinary treaty in as much as it contends for a new political organisation—the union of Europe—in which, on 1 January 1993, we become citizens of a new political organisation. That also applies to Her Majesty the Queen. It would effect that which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), in his Bill, and the Levellers themselves no less have not succeeded in effecting—it would reduce the Queen to a citizen. That is contrary to our constitutional traditions. I cite that not because of its great importance, but because it shows the extent to which the treaty is a new political organisation. My contention is that no such profound constitutional change should take place without reference to the people.
  Involved in that concept is the idea of where sovereignty in this country lies. I have always maintained, as do many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that sovereignty resides with the people; we are the expression of that sovereignty. When we rise and defend the House of Commons, we defend not ourselves, our privileges or our prides, but the pride, individuality and privileges of our fellow citizens. Each one of us here assembled is here only because we have been sent forth to represent our fellow electors. We are no different from them, other than that they have reposed in us confidence that we will address ourselves to the political business of our nation.
  I belong to a union—the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a political allegiance which I gladly give. It is one of sentiment, one of passion, one which has been fashioned over the course of centuries. That is to be set aside because the Treaty of Union seeks to make me a citizen of elsewhere. I would be a citizen with a profound and essential difference: I could not control the laws, in whole areas, by which I would be governed.
  582
  I make that point because it is essential to our nation's understanding of what our rule of law is. We maintain that every citizen of this Union should obey the law—a law that, in the end, we have formed, fashioned, made and defended. If we wish to change it, we know the processes by which to do so, and we hold Governments accountable to that effect. When we repose confidence in members of the Government Front Bench, the laws that they suggest we make are within our call. If they get it wrong, we may change them. Where in that Treaty of Union is the mechanism by which we may change the law? If we cannot change the law, how do we expect to insist on obedience from all of us? As I have said, we are no different from anyone else; the law applies to us just as it does to our fellow electors. When each one of us was elected in 1987, we were given the trust to maintain, control, alter and fashion law. Under the Treaty of Union, we have no such powers.
  Of course, it will be argued from the Front Benches that the process has been a while in the making and that it has been sanctioned by the Single European Act—which is true. I am sure that in a more scrupulous age we would have argued that, on such a profound constitutional change, the electorate should be consulted. I shall cite two instances of that, because we used to believe in this House in what was called the specific mandate. I refer to the specific mandate because it was the reason why we did not need to resort to a referendum.
  One of the two great constitutional fights of the past century was the great Reform Bill of 1832. There was no doubt in the mind of the Parliament that voted for that that the matter would be resolved at an election. There was a clear distinction between the views of Mr. Peel and those who promoted the Bill. The electorate was able to choose. Similarly, in 1910, although the argument for a referendum was mooted, there was no doubt that the divide between the parties was sufficient to give the electorate an opportunity to judge those issues that were most in their interest.
  Those are clear and important examples of what I call the specific mandate. Indeed, the argument for a specific mandate echoes through the history of the 20th century. Mr. Baldwin, elected in 1931 with a confident and strong majority, said that his Government had to go to the country in 1932 on the question whether there should be tariffs—an incidence that he shared with Balfour 20 years before. He lost that election and, in the way of such matters, the exercise has never been repeated. We now reside in this House on the concept of more general than specific mandates.
  The question would not go away, because in the ultimate sanction of entry into the Community, as it was originally proposed, many in the House recognised that it was so fundamental to the way in which we had historically done our business that we would be taking away the power by which we regulated some of our decisions if we accepted the body of law already established by the Community.
  Let us put aside that consideration and think about some of the essential claims made at that time. Harold Wilson, in his White Paper, was at pains to emphasise that, ultimately, there could be no change within the laws of the Community except with the sanction of a British Minister responsible to his House and thus accountable to every one of our electors. That was an essential selling point of the new relationship with the European Community.

  583
  Notwithstanding that, for the internal reasons that the Labour party thought necessary, but with the support of a great many others, a referendum was held. It actually settled the issue for almost 10 years, until the Single European Act. That was one of the great benefits. Some in my party object to referendums. They say that they are an affront to parliamentary sovereignty. I tried to deal with that question by showing that, in fact, parliamentary sovereignty is the concentrated expression of the sovereignty of the electorate. Therefore, how can it be an affront to the sovereignty of the electorate if it is asked specifically to judge an issue of great constitutional importance?
  The other point often made is that it would be intolerable for a Ministry to have a referendum in which the electorate flew against the Ministry's advice. Would not the Ministry be forced to introduce policies with which it did not agree? Is not that an intolerable burden to place upon Government? Much has been made of that argument. Mr. Churchill threw it across the Floor at Mr. Balfour; and Mr. Powell enunciated it in early 1969, although he later changed his mind.
  The answer to that argument is that we have all been in this House when Governments have been forced to change their mind, even on a principal policy on which they were elected—or claimed to be. I need only cite the embarrassment of myself and others on the question of the poll tax. The Ministers who said that the poll tax was absolutely essential and that it was the flagship are still in their Ministries. It is tolerable to continue in government only if Ministers recognise the virtues and the duties imposed upon them as Ministers of the Crown. It is not an answer to say that it is an intolerable burden; the proof of our history has demonstrated just how tolerable it has been to sufficient numbers of Members of Parliament.
  A leading article in The Independent today suggested that a referendum might be appropriate on a single currency. We can pursue that debate, and I do not doubt that hon. Members will do so today. I want to make it clear that my simple objection is to the political union. I have tried to sketch out the way in which the people of this country will be bound by laws and rules that are made elsewhere by unelected officials and a Council of Ministers that is accountable to no one—no Europewide electorate, and not even us ultimately. Even if our Minister today went to argue his corner within that unelected, undemocratic forum, and even though he may say that 100 per cent. of the citizens of the United Kingdom are opposed to whatever it is, if it is the view of others by qualified majority vote—on a whole range of issues set out in the Treaty of Union—it will become the law of this country. What can we do about it? That is the great bleak with our tradition that requires that Maastricht should be scrutinised.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is there not something even more sinister in people talking in abstract terms about Britain becoming part of this political union? People may have the impression that we, the 12 countries and perhaps more, are all pals together. The truth is that the real powerhouse of the Common Market lies in Germany. It has just annexed East Germany. It is central to the activities of all the nation states that are falling apart in eastern Europe. Political union spells something much more sinister, and that is German domination. We fought
  584
  for six years against it in the second world war. If hon. Members allow this political union, they will allow the Germans to win now when they lost in 1945.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is true that the dominant economic power in Europe is Germany. With the advent of the Community and the unity and greater cohesion of Germany, Germany seems to be the dominant central European power. My fear and an argument made over the years is that the periphery will gravitate towards the centre. Therefore, Britain, as a peripheral part of the Community, will be marginal within the great tides of central European perceptions.
  Mr. Tony Favell: It is always pleasing to me to take up an intervention by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He will recall that in 1979 I almost beat him in the election.
  Mr. Skinner: He did not.
  Mr. Favell: I was about 20,000 short, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Whether or not Germany seeks to dominate Europe, it will, like it or not. Geographically it is at the centre and economically it is the most powerful. The German character is such—I happen to be half German, so I can speak from experience—
  Mr. James Cran: Oh dear.
  Mr. Favell: The truth will out—they cannot go on a picnic without running it. That is within the German character. One must prepare oneself for it. If we do not say no now, Germany will inevitably dominate a political union. Nineteen ninety-six is too late. We are locked into the exchange rate mechanism and all that goes with it to ensure that we have a fixed exchange rate. That will inevitably lead to a single currency, whether we like it or not. By then a referendum will be far too late.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am glad of my hon. Friend's intervention. The purpose of the debate is not to identify Germany or any other country as a threat; it is to concentrate our minds on what is right for us as a people in terms of our Government and institutions.
  Most hon. Members agree that we want the closest possible harmony, friendship and co-operation with those countries to which we are adjacent. There can be no doubt about that. The process by which we have conducted our foreign affairs during the past 20 years or so shows a great will to work in harmony to lay to rest the fears of 40 or 50 years ago when we had to mobilise the nation to fight a war for national survival. We could mobilise our people and win that war. It was a people's war because the House of Commons had no doubt that we had to defend our liberties. At the end of the day, our freedoms and liberties are secure so long as we, the people, secure them through our institutions.
  I want to give an instance of what happens when we opt for qualified majority voting and what it does to our institutions. We all know that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has effectively become a branch office of Brussels. When the Minister stands before us and claims some sort of casual relationship, and therefore parliamentary responsibility for his deeds, we all know in our hearts and many of us in our voices that it is transparent. It is a charade.

  585
  There is a consensus in this country that the common agricultural policy is wrong. It costs the consumer great sums. It does not satisfy the farmer. It causes problems for the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It interferes with our overseas foreign policy. We have many friends abroad who form part of our commonwealth of nations. What has happened to their agriculture? Is it aid to those less fortunate than ourselves that we will not buy their sugar because it is at a free price and on an open market? We do not hold it to be so. Yet the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with a clear majority across the House, would tomorrow be forced to scrap that policy and introduce a policy that better meets the needs of our consumers, our farmers, our world trading position and our foreign policy. We cannot do that because we, the House of Commons and the people of England, are bound to accept the nostrums and perceptions of other people.
  I have nothing to say against the nostrums and perceptions of other people, because what is appropriate to France and Italy is for the French and Italians to judge. They must defend their institutions or submerge them in what they want. I will not let go by the nonsense that the former Foreign Secretary paraded through the House to its shame and, I believe, to his—the idea that sovereignty can be pooled. It has been observed that sovereignty means constitutional independence only and, like virginity, once lost it is gone. The former Foreign Secretary is of a belief that sovereignty can be pooled. If it is pooled, how do we control the laws under which we live? I asked him that, but I have had no answer to the question.
  I return to the debate that took place after the Maastricht conference. I want to make an observation about a major constitutional change, such as those that in the past have required Governments to go to the country on the specific instance. Was there a ministerial broadcast to tell us the nature of the changes? No, there was a party political broadcast that required no reply and that lasted for five or 10 minutes. Did the Labour party have an opportunity to give its clear adherence to all the contentions now contained in the document for political union? No, it did not. Was there an opportunity for the Liberal party to tell us its wilder dreams for submerging its own regard for British citizens? Was there any opportunity, therefore, to tell the people of the consequences, the meaning, how the power was transferred and where it was? Not one.
  During the debate I listened extremely carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, there were eight spokesmen on both Front Benches, but not one touched on the constitutional issue. Why? It is the very issue that brings us here, the very basis on which I am elected and the very equality of citizenship. Not one word. It was important to the history of us all.
  I am a Conservative Member of Parliament because of the actions of many working-class people within the Labour movement who worked to extend the franchise. I am not even sure that my grandfather could vote in the 1910 election. We forget too easily that many of our people just did not have the vote. When Mr. Asquith grew worried about the idea of referendums, his argument was that if there was a referendum on the vote for women, it might lead to dreadful consequences; a referendum might
  586
  extend the vote to people like my grandfather. It was too awful to contemplate. That is the cosiness that has brought the House into some level of disrepute.
  It is important that we march by what our people want. We determined the matter across the Benches of the House, as I heard from the Leader of the Opposition. He knows what the power of the vote is. Yet, despite the struggles of the early Labour movement that brought the vote to me and my family, what did he have to say about the power of the vote? Not one word. The Labour movement grew out of proselytising—telling people that by obtaining the vote they could change the politics of this nation, that they could exercise control over the institutions, that they could divert the resources of this country towards ameliorating the conditions of the people of this country. What is our answer to that question? Certainly there was none from the leader of the Labour party.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have the great privilege of representing the constituency of the first leader of the Labour party, James Keir Hardie, who came here to change the law in favour of ordinary people. Does he not agree, however, that there is now an obligation on Her Majesty's Government, who signed this bundle of documents that I hold in my hand, the plenipotentiary of the Foreign Secretary, to issue before the election a clear guide to the extraordinary combination of 350 new or rewritten articles and to tell us what it all means so that any party or any citizen can take a view, if that is necessary, before the new Parliament is elected?
  Mr. Shepherd: It is a duty incumbent on any Government to set out clearly great changes as they affect an electorate. I agree that there should be a White Paper either before the election or after the election. It is clear from the statements by the Leader of the Opposition, with his disregard now for the vote and how he can change policies within this country, that there is to be no issue in the election about whether Maastricht was right or wrong. There is an essential argument for why a referendum should take place: that there should be a clear exposition that this, and this, and this will now be determined elsewhere, well beyond our call, and that notwithstanding this diminution of the power of the people and of this House, the Government and the Opposition of the day, if necessary, should recommend it to the people because there is a greater advantage, as yet unspecified, in losing self-government.
  Both Front Benches hold forth—what I am saying rises above all parties—that there is a great gain in continuing and extending a new constitution. That is most extraordinary. As I said about the Maastricht debate, of eight Front-Bench spokesmen not one mentioned our constitutional arrangements, yet we are here only because of our constitution. The Leader of the Opposition does not even deign to say a word about why it is necessary to reduce the power of our people to control their affairs and the laws under which they live.
  I believe most solemnly, and the House should, in my view, believe most solemnly, that there ought to be a direct exposition to the people of this country of what these changes amount to and why they are necessary. The people should be invited to give their advice upon it. That is the substance of the Bill. I have tried to be brief in outlining,

  587
  perhaps with some passion, why I think that the Bill is important and why it should be passed. None of us had this treaty before us during the Maastricht debate. What we had was a variety of drafts. The Luxembourg drafts secretly flew in the window of the Library.
  Mr. William Cash: At 1.30 on the day of the debate.
  Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend says at 1.30 on the day of the debate. Those drafts were available to our national newspapers. I made a point of ensuring that both The Guardian and The Independent, because they declare that they do not have a party allegiance, whatever that means, should have copies of the original Luxembourg draft.
  Months went by, but did I have any analysis of the basis of the treaty? If I did not have it, how can the electorate out there have it? That is the freedom of the press, the freedom of Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith to suppress information, the freedom of Mr. Preston to suppress information because they take a view of the world, since they know that the views of the public are not worth having. What they have decided is a greater vision—a vision that they do not wish to share with us—that should be promoted through the editorial columns of their newspapers and that they should exercise—
  Mr. Skinner: The chattering classes.
  Mr. Shepherd: No, I do not accept that it is just the chattering classes. I just say that the dominance of the press means that its editors try to drive public opinion towards conclusions that they take for granted. That is unsatisfactory.
  Why is it that The Independent, in possession of the draft treaty, could not advise the electorate that great issues were at stake? No, the game was much better to say that the British Government objected to something. All that can be presented then is a series of clashes. That of itself is informative. When I consider their solemn pledges about the freedom of the press, which I wholeheatedly support and which I have tried to introduce legislation to support, I find that when it comes to identifying great issues it is not for the hoi-polloi of the House of Commons or the people of this country to be troubled with the great stirrings that underlie these constitutional changes. [Laughter.] It is extraordinary that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) should laugh as though there were something curious about what I say. If he could point out where an analysis of these drafts was published at any time until within a week before the treaty was signed, I should be grateful for his comfort and advice. Of course he cannot do so. The curious point about this is that they believe that they take a broader view of life and know better than those out there. That is fair and fine if one argues one's corner—but who argues the European corner? The Government no longer do so. They merely announce that they have had a triumph—game, set, match is the flavour of the month. But game, set, match about what? What did we win? How did we win?
  The forming of a constitution is not a question of winning or losing. It is a deliberate act, the careful weighing of the balances and the checks. There are people in this country who profoundly argue, through Charter 88, that our present checks and balances are inadequate. They argue for change. But do we argue for change? There is a constitution on the table. It is not the Charter 88's
  588
  constitution. It is called the Treaty of Union. Every newspaper should ask what that means. It is a simple question. Can we change our laws under it? Again that is a simple question.
  Neither The Independent nor The Guardian can address that issue; nor do they wish to do so. I have singled out those two newspapers, but the same charge can be laid against others. I chose them because they maintain that theirs is a balanced and independent view and that they come to conclusions. Therefore, I believe that they have a greater duty to inform the public of the great issues of the day. Highlighting them would enable us to have a debate. Why, therefore, in this electoral process are we unable specifically to discuss or refer this issue to the electorate? We are unable to do so because of the binding down and the consensus of opinion between the leaderships of parties. There is therefore no opportunity for the ordinary citizen to make a judgment.
  Mr. Cash: In the midst of one of the most superb speeches that I have heard on this matter for a very long time, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that 1 he statement that was made at last year's party conference by the chairman of the Conservative party—that we, the Conservatives, trust the people—should be shown to be the reality not only in the context of a referendum but by a free vote in the House when the Bill comes before us? Does my hon. Friend agree with both those propositions?
  Mr. Shepherd: On account of the most profound constitutional changes that have been mooted, I believe that there should be a free vote. It is very difficult within the terms of Burke. I hear many of my colleagues say, "But we were elected and all that we owe to our constituents is our judgment. We cannot be bought by our constituents because we stand aside and weigh the evidence." All that would be true but for the three-line Whip and the guillotine. We do not owe our duties and allegiances in too many instances to our electorate; we owe them to the Whip. If we owe them to the Whip, how can we stand in front of the electorate and say, "But your views are honourably judged"?
  I refer again to the Maastricht debate. There was a three-line Whip. I go back to the Single European Act. There was not only a three-line Whip but a guillotine. The House knows my views on the guillotine. I see that the Leader of the House is moving towards the view that guillotines are a natural, inevitable and desirable consequence of the way that we do our business. The letters that I have received shout with frustration about our political process and the fact that no longer do we seem to represent the people out there and properly express their views. How can we if we truncate great debates into three hours on a guillotine? How can we turn to our constituents and say, "I have looked at it and considered it. I have heard the arguments"? Not a bit. We have had the innovation of Baker Bills, with guillotines on all stages. It is a disgrace, and the public know that it is such.
  However, passionate one may be about these matters, it is the duty of the House to be cautious of the consequences of legislation because it can send us to prison —the most solemn thing that it can do within our processes.
  Legislation demands the old processes and procedures of the House: the First Reading to give notice, then a

  589
  pause; a Second Reading to consider the principle of the Bill, as we are doing today, and a further pause; the Committee stage, where we consider the contentions and legal arrangements of the Bill; and then it comes back to the House and is further considered. In those processes, the public may get in touch with us and argue their corner. That is terribly important for giving validity to the rule of law, because then no one can say that a Bill was smuggled through in an afternoon.
  I am fortunate in having one of the great begetters of the guillotine movement in my party—my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)—who required 65 guillotines during his tenure of office. I have always thought that misjudged, because in the doing of small things, as we think at the time, we corrupt the greater principle—attestation, as Burke would say, that our electorates give either consent or acquiescence. If we truncate our debates and do not weigh their views, we are contemptuous of our electorates and they, in turn, are contemptuous of us.
  I have never known the standing of Members of Parliament to be so low. I see people shudder almost as we pass and say, "You are only in it for what you can get". [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes a shudder in other ways—with administration, trepidation and inspiration. Nevertheless, the point is that we have broken that trust, no one else.
  The insistence of the business managers is that we must be able to legislate endlessly—no self-denying ordinance there. The Baker Bill is the final nail in the coffin of a series of tendentious and difficult Bills where great principles were rushed through in a day.
  We are elected every four or five years; our authority is clearly fresh. People feel that they have an idea of where we stand. During the course of a Parliament, our connection and the issues change. What people thought that they may have been voting on in 1987 is not necessarily what they think they are voting on today. The coming general election will be about a variety of issues—the economy, the national health service or whatever—but not about Europe. If Europe is mentioned in a party's programme, it will be as an aside—some general expression by which the public can diagnose no true intent. It is believed that, in that way, we can cover over the issue if there is an argument. That is why I make the point that there should be a specific reference to the electorate.
  I say as a last note to the House that our people should "not go gentle into that good night" but should rather "rage, rage, against the dying of the light" that requires us to live under laws that we cannot change or control.
  10.13 am
  Mr. Peter Shore: I think that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for introducing the Bill and giving us an opportunity of addressing the most important issue that has come before us during the lifetime of this Parliament, which will shortly end.
  The House will also be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the clarity and passion with which he argued his case. Of the many points that he made, with which I am substantially in agreement, one of the most telling was about obedience to the rule of law. We obey the laws of
  590
  our country, even those with which we profoundly disagree, because we know that the representatives of the British people have made that law and that it is always open to them to change that law, and that behind the representatives of the British people stand the British people themselves.
  One of the things that distinguish such a law from one made under European authority is that we cannot change European law or repeal it. Therefore, the link between Ministers, Members of Parliament and the electorate is broken. Laws are made in Europe by unaccountable, unelected officials and by a Council of Ministers making majority decisions. I would not be satisfied even if the European Community were to transform its institutions so that all its laws were made by an elected European Parliament. I would not accept it, because those Members of the European Parliament are not the representatives of the British people. We would be only a small minority in that Parliament. No one should have the right to pass laws that are binding on the British people unless they can be dismissed by the British people. That is a fundamental law and should be a fundamental principle of our constitution.
  I thank the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for the concise form and penetration of the Bill. He has managed, in a few words, to address two major points, the first of which is the role of the referendum, which offers one of the few possibilities to remedy a fundamental weakness in our constitution. We have no written constitution and no procedures to protect and entrench features of our national and constitutional life. Everything can be changed by a simple majority. Many other countries, as we know, have quite elaborate procedures requiring a majority of two thirds for changes in constitutional matters and arrangements, often backed up with public referendums.
  We have no such defence. Indeed, previously we did not need them, because only this generation of British parliamentary representatives has contemplated handing to others the great prizes of national independence, self-government and the rule of law under our own elected representatives. It would not have occurred to a previous generation to hand to others that which we prize most greatly and have given to other countries throughout the world in the past 50 years. That is the novelty of the proposition, against which, because we did not think it conceivable, we have no defences. A referendum is a major constitutional device for defending the rights of the British people and our constitution.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the referendum will not be a defence unless there are clear rules to prevent one side from pouring millions of pounds into its campaign, which in 1975 resulted in a prejudiced, biased, unfair provision of information for people to make a judgment? It is important to ensure that the referendum is genuinely a defence and not a device.
  Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Veterans of that great battle in 1975 will be well aware of the inadequacies of the arrangements that were made and the vast weight of money that helped enormously to distort the results of the vote. I am certain that we are now sufficiently experienced to devise new and more effective rules to ensure that if and when a referendum takes place it will be far fairer and will therefore give people a much better

  591
  chance genuinely to express their views. The other point that I find so helpful and so pertinent is that the Bill addresses the most important issue of this Parliament—the Maastricht treaties. It does not deal with all treaties but with those of the European Community and those that might amend or extend them. In particular, it deals with those treaties that might
  "further diminish the Authority of the Queen in Parliament to regulate the affairs of the United Kingdom."
  That regulation of our affairs is, of course, an all-embracing term and includes the power to legislate, the right to raise taxes and authorise expenditure and the right to determine the internal and external policies of the United Kingdom.
  I shall deal with just two major questions. The first that must be asked, because it brings out the relevance and importance of the Bill, is whether the Maastricht treaty diminishes the authority of the Queen in Parliament, of the House of Commons or of elected Members of this House. Does it or does it not?
  I preface my remarks on this issue by saying that no one can read the Maastricht treaty without concluding that it is a major extension of the Community's authority over the United Kingdom. I shall not dwell for too long on why it has made a major shift from what was previously the dominant view that Europe should be a Europe de patrie to the new, clear, open, naked confession that it is to be a federal union or a union of Europe, but the shift has taken place. The historical factors that have most influenced the change are, in my view, the reunification of Germany, the fear of German leaders of their own power if it is not bridled by those of a European federal state and France's fear that unless Germany is so bridled, it could possibly again become a danger to France. That has produced the extraordinary historical change in the thrust of French foreign policy. That and the Germany thrust have given tremendous weight to the drive towards a federal union.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with what seems to be the most widely held opinion among federalists in Europe that perhaps the most significant thing about the Maastricht treaty is that it does the very opposite of that which the right hon. Gentleman is now describing, because it builds on European political co-operation which, as he knows, is intergovernmental? It seeks to entrench the common foreign security policy and interior justice matters as intergovernmental and therefore does precisely the opposite of what he says.
  Mr. Shore: My best answer to the right hon. Gentleman is to remind him of some of what is in the treaty. I understand that it was the Government's aim as far as possible to make certain aspects of the Maastricht treaty reflect intergovernmental arrangements rather than those of the main treaty of Rome with all its supernational apparatus. I understand that that was the aim, but it has been only very partially accomplished.
  Let us consider the question in which the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps most interested, that of foreign and defence policy. But first, what about the general thrust of the treaty itself? Article A states:
  "This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe".
  592
  Incidentally, it was only the British who knocked out the words "a federal vocation" and replaced them with "ever closer union". No other country fought for that, but that is a minor point.
  Secondly, article B states:
  "The Union"—
  undefined—
  "shall set itself the following objectives"
  and it proceeds to list a number, including that of asserting
  "its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy".
  The treaty goes on:
  "The Union and its Member States shall define arid implement a common foreign and security policy … The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively, unreservedly, in the spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity … and shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations."
  It continues:
  "In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States participate, those which do take part shall uphold the common position."
  As we know, the Council decides, especially on the subject of joint action. I understand that it is not entirely a matter of majority voting, but only where joint actions are agreed. Once joint actions are agreed, that is what happens. But let us read the treaty against the background of the general declaration of intent which is to establish a common foreign policy.
  I agree that the issue of defence is still less developed than that of foreign policy, but the treaty states:
  "The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
  Mr. Favell: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is very important. Does he recall that during Foreign Office questions replies almost invariably start with the words "Having consulted our European partners" or "After discussions with our European partners"?
  Mr. Shore: I am having trouble hearing.
  Mr. Favell: Almost invariably replies to Foreign Office questions begin "Having consulted our European partners" or "Having spoken to our European partners". We no longer have an independent foreign policy.
  Mr. Shore: That is a major extension, and I do not think that it is open to serious dispute.
  Foreign policy is one of the matters that distinguish a state. If we have now joined a union which claims an international personality and interests which must be defended by a common security and foreign policy, clearly it is claiming to be a new state. It is a quasi-state, if not an entirely established one. The direction is quite clear. As if to make it certain that it is not misunderstood, the treaty states at the end that there shall be a further intergovernmental conference in 1996 to push further the purposes of the union. We know very well that the pressures that were partly resisted in the recent negotiations in Maastricht will be resumed with ever-greater force in the years ahead.
  Foreign and defence policy is one of the characteristics of sovereignty. If one is not in charge of one's external relations and of defence, that is an enormous transfer of power and an enormous surrender of sovereignty.
  Mr. George Robertson: Although my right hon. Friend and I have parted company on a number of issues related to the European Community in recent years, during the earlier years of my parliamentary career he and I stood side by side in the great defence debate which once troubled our party. On our defence of NATO, we were of identical mind.
  The North Atlantic treaty, which is to do with the defence of the nations that have subscribed to that treaty, applies in the case of an attack on any one member of the treaty organisation. In that case, all the forces of all the countries will be committed to a central military command. Is not that conceding the absolute sovereignty that goes along with defence? If that is the basis on which my right hon. Friend is arguing now, surely we conceded such sovereignty in 1949 when we signed the North Atlantic treaty.
  Mr. Shore: The North Atlantic treaty was a treaty of enormous importance and I agree with my hon. Friend that we should play our full part in it. It laid on those nations who signed it the obligation to come to the aid of each other if they were attacked or under threat of attack. However, my hon. Friend has failed to see the distinction between conventional treaties, of which NATO is one, and treaties of a very special kind such as those on the European Community. To me, the essence of the argument is this. After 40 years of NATO we are utterly free, without any difficulties, to withdraw from it or to amend it. For example, when de Gaulle came to power, the French fundamentally changed their view about the unified command. They expelled the headquarters of NATO from Fontainebleau, so that it moved to Brussels, and withdrew their armed forces from the combined command without any sanction being brought against them.
  I add one further point, which goes to the heart of the matter. Our obligations under the NATO treaty have not led to the imposition of a single piece of legislation on the British people, whereas through the treaties with Europe —my hon. Friend must recognise this—for the first time in our history, we have handed over to others the right to make the laws of England. We did not do that with NATO and we have not done it with any other treaty.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: To add power to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, may I point out that NATO does not contend that it is irrevocable and irreversible? These key phrases should stick in our gullets. The EC document is trying to bind future generations as well as this generation. There is a fundamental difference between irrevocable and irreversible treaties and the ordinary treaties that we have entered. The treaty needs reading, and it would have helped if the Labour Front Bench team had read it before committing the party so vehemently to it.
  Mr. ShoreThe hon. Gentleman has made clear the uniqueness of the European Community treaty and what it means for Parliament. I am grateful to him for reinforcing my point.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shore: No, I will not, because I must make progress.
  Other policies besides foreign and defence policy are involved. We may differ across the Floor of the House on

  594
  the policies that we adopt towards immigration and asylum. Those difficult questions are the subject of considerable debate and must be decided by the elected representatives of the people of the United Kingdom and not by any European authority. The new provisions in the part of the treaty dealing with home affairs policy threaten transfer of such powers, and that is not acceptable. It is one of the essential features of national sovereignty, independence and self-government that the Government, of Britain in this case, should have the right to decide who should come into this country, to live and to work here, and to settle here. We should not hand over that power to the European Community.
  The third feature that is crucial to the reality of sovereignty is that the country has a currency of its own and a central bank responsive to the elected Government. The Maastricht treaty, which is on economic and monetary union, is deliberately and openly designed to bring about the unification of the currencies of Europe into one single currency. I doubt whether any hon. Member does not recognise that if that happens, we shall be abandoning all possibility of regulating the British economy within our own country. We shall have lost exchange rate policy, interest rate policy and control over our national bank. Through the limitations on the public sector borrowing requirement and other policies, we shall be subject to external government in respect of how much we are able to borrow. It is one of the signs of a state that it possesses a central bank and a currency of its own, and it is impossible to govern without them. That power will be transferred from Britain to the European Community.
  I want finally to emphasise the point about the creation of a union and the citizenship of that union. We do not know what that means. It has never been explained—it was hardly mentioned in the debates that we had on the Maastricht treaty—but I assume that it means something and I assume that it means that, as citizens, we have not only rights but obligations, or that those obligations would follow rapidly from the acceptance of such a citizenship of the union. Do British citizens realise that they are becoming citizens of a European union? Do they realise, that, as a result, great privileges are being given to the population of the European Community in respect of entry to this country? I do not think that they have woken up to that fact.
  These are the features of a sovereign state and these features are being acquired by the European Community. Having, I hope, established the nature of the process which Maastricht carries so far forward, and having shown that it would
  "diminish the Authority of the Queen in Parliament"
  and of the House of Commons, I hope that we can move quickly to agree that, in such circumstances, there must be direct consultation with the British people and that we must have, directly, their authority to proceed in this way.
  It would be an outrage if the British people, who have defended their liberties and independence—after all, self-government is the first freedom—were to find themselves deprived of these great rights by a process of signing a treaty and obtaining a simple majority in the House of Commons. It would have the most deplorable effects not only on Parliament but on the people's view of the House of Commons and their elected representatives and it would undermine the rule of law, because law would no longer be based on a legitimate process of government

  595
  and legislation by the representatives of the people. I warmly endorse the Bill and 1 hope that we shall give it our approval this afternoon.
  10.37 am
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: One of the most difficult challenges for a Member of Parliament is to try to refute the eloquence and persuasion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), especially when added to that is a passionate and thoughtful speech by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). However, I shall seek to do so because I think that the Bill is misguided and that it would be an error for the House to give it a Second Reading. In favour as I am, generally, of guillotines and the timetabling of Bills, I think that this Bill is an exception and I hope that it will be considered at great length today, and in Committee if it gets that far. It is important that all its provisions should be analysed in great detail.
  It is disappointing, to say the least, that my hon. Friend should ask for a referendum on this issue. Following the Maastricht negotiations, the Government delivered a result that was in the best interests of Britain and sought to take account of people's real fears about the growth of a federal state in Europe and about too much power being conceded to the European Communities.
  The agreement was forged following a considerable amount of public debate and after the House had debated the issues on many occasions. It is fallacious to suggest that the public and the House did not know what was going on. In the six months preceding the Maastricht agreement, we talked of little else. The House and the public had plenty of opportunities to understand what was involved.
  A paradox is inherent in the constitutional purism of which we have heard today. Wherein lies sovereignty? Are we really kidding ourselves that we shall achieve something by being isolationist? I imagine that many of those who support the Bill hope that, if the matter were put to a referendum, the British public would say a firm no. Do they really believe that by going it alone and not taking part in the economic and political development of the European Community we shall enhance our sovereignty? What sort of world are we living in? Do those who support the Bill really believe that we shall be able to influence our exchange rate, interest rate, rate of inflation, public expenditure and prosperity if we do not take part in the European Community?
  It is because I believe passionately that Britain's membership of the European Community will deliver a better standard of living to the people whom I represent that I support our membership of it. I am no starry-eyed European—nor am I a constitutional adventurist. I want those whom I represent to have a higher standard of living. The bottom line must be the prosperity that Europe can deliver. That is why I generally support movements towards greater economic and monetary union.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: But all that the Bill proposes is that we should trust the people. We should ask the people and put the arguments to them.
  Mr. Nelson: That is true of all referendums, and I do not rule out referendums on all subjects, but we have every right—indeed, we have a responsibility—to be selective about the issues that we put to a referendum.
  596
  Throughout history, rederendums have been called for and not held. There are plenty of examples. At the end of the last century, the Liberal Unionists wanted a referendum on home rule for Ireland. Like Stanley Baldwin, Joseph Chamberlain wanted one on tariff reform. Even Winston Churchill called for a referendum on whether the coalition Government should be kept going until the Japanese were defeated. We have had calls for referendums on numerous issues, but most have been rejected. It was not until the mid-1970s that referendums started to be held: on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom, on devolution in Scotland and Wales, and—the only real example of a nationwide referendum—on the subject of our remaining in the European Community. If one starts holding referendums, where does one stop? The more referendums we have, the greater the demand for them will be. People will want them held on more and more subjects. Why not have a referendum on the bomb, on hanging and on numerous other issues, and not merely on constitutional issues?
  Referendums are not part of the evolution of our parliamentary democracy. It is no part of our tradition and system of government that, on every issue on which there is contention in the House, we give the people an opportunity, through a referendum, to express their views. We are charged by our electorate with the responsibility to try to divine the common good. The electorate has opportunities—as it will have within a matter of months—to pass judgment on whether we are right or wrong.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to learn that I understand and agree with much that he is saying. He represents a particular area, and the alternative method to a referendum would surely be for him to obtain from his electorate a mandate on certain serious matters. Can he tell us what mandate he or his predecessor obtained for the approval of the Single European Act and, presumably, the endorsement of both the application and the agreement that the Prime Minister obtained at Maastricht? Can he tell us that chapter and verse?
  Mr. Nelson: I have spelt out clearly to my electors in Chichester exactly where I stand and what I want. If the hon. Gentleman doubts it, I remind him that, in 1978, I tabled the first early-day motion calling for rapid progress towards economic and monetary union, which was signed by numerous hon. Members, many of them now Ministers. Twelve years elapsed before what I called for then was achieved and that may seem rather slow progress, but no one can accuse me of not stating my position clearly to my electors and not seeking a mandate, and I predict that I shall get a reasonable mandate from my constituents on this issue when I put it to them shortly.

  What are my objections to a referendum in this context? First, referendums are often defective because they are snapshots of public opinion and public opinion moves on. I believe that, on the EC and its development, opinions have changed not just among the public but in the House. As the arguments have been heard and as negotiations have proceeded, and as my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have reassured the public and explained more clearly why it is in the public interest to forge such an agreement, public opinion has

  597
  changed. Many people who were understandably hostile to everything connected with the Common Market now realise that it is in our interests.
  The ordinary man in the street, who had many of the reservations that I still have about the European Community, now has a much more favourable opinion of it. He shared my concern about the common agricultural policy, about wasted expenditure within the European Commission and about every aspect of life being controlled from Brussels. I still have those concerns, but I know that it is better to be in there, preventing things from happening, than to stay out.
  The ordinary man in the street has moved on. Let us take the man in Thanet—Thanet man. Thanet man has moved on. He was very concerned about the European Community having federal powers that were too great, but Thanet man realised once the agreement was forged that it was far better to support the Government, to come onside and to work within the European Community and give greater credibility to the structures provided to represent him than he had in the past. Thanet man is now on the Government's side, and it would be a great disappointment if a referendum on this issue, or the opening up of divisions on this question, should once more lead Thanet man into a period of uncertainty and fear, given the great opportunity that we have to go forward to greater prosperity and representation in Europe.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am dazzled by my hon. Friend's concentration on Thanet man. As the only representative of the species present today, I want to make two points. First, although I accept the part of my hon. Friend's argument that says that the caravan is moving on, one of the reasons why it is moving on is that we had a referendum on the Common Market, as it then was, in 1976, which clarified many people's views. Secondly, bearing in mind that referendum and those on Scottish and Welsh devolution, I do not see why my hon. Friend should be so alarmed as to think that the evolution of referendums should suddenly halt in the 1990s and why he should be so afraid to test the complexities of Maastricht against the views of ordinary people in this country. I support the Bill because I believe that those ordinary people should be asked to express their opinions through the only mechanism available.
  Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend makes his position clear in his usual persuasive way. I remain concerned about referendums because they are a snapshot of public opinion. Moreover, my hon. Friend would be on stronger ground if he said that there was a case for holding a referendum before the introduction of the legislation that gave effect to the Single European Act rather than on this issue. Other right hon. Members, including right hon. Ladies, who have been present in this debate to support the Bill did not at that time propose a referendum on the Single European Act. It ill behoves them to support today's Bill.
  I believe that the more we have referendums, the more it brings into question the sovereignty of this House. It undermines the repute, standing and influence of this House if we consistently put to the public issues about which we are elected to decide. What question will be asked? We all know that a particular result can often be
  598
  achieved by the way in which the question is put. There is no certainty that, in respect of this Bill, the question could be phrased in such a way as to divine a fair test of public opinion.
  However, I have not yet made the most persuasive argument against referendums generally. I believe that the most persuasive argument is that they are, and can be, a cruel hoax and confidence trick on the public because they often extricate a particular issue from their consequences and from the totality of Government policy. By putting a particular issue to a plebiscite, one can deliver a result which may be disastrous in terms of overall policy. That is very important because, on issues such as that contained in the Bill, we must consider the issue in terms of management of the economy, future influence over our own affairs and our own influence in the world. We cannot consider the issue simply in isolationist terms as a referendum would necessarily regard it.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is making a brilliant and very persuasive case about the dangers of referendums because, as he said, they can be snapshots of public opinion; they can concentrate wrongly on particular issues and people can be misled. Does my hon. Friend believe that it is wise for us to continue the practice of having general elections, because the same arguments can be made about them? In view of my hon. Friend's valid criticisms, should we not stop having general elections?
  Mr. Nelson: I would not go as far as that. Perhaps my hon. Friend fails to understand the point that I was making before he intervened. In a general election, people have an opportunity to consider all Government policies, while in a referendum people have an opportunity to consider only one, but one that might have implications for the rest of the Government policy. That is why there should generally be a self-denying ordinance exercised in respect of referendums.
  What was achieved at Maastricht offers enormous opportunities for this country, both politically and economically. It is crazy to suggest that somehow we could go it alone, be better off and have magical self determination politically, economically and in international affairs. It is not right to leap enthusiastically into a constitutional federal structure. It is not right to proceed without some suspicion or cynicism about the ethics and practical objectives of the European Community. Unless we are prepared to play our part in Europe and to be, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at the heart of Europe, we will not be able to deliver to the people we represent the standard of living that they deserve or meet their aspirations and provide for them the influence in world events and forums for which they had elected us to this place.
  I am in favour of our having that influence. I am in favour of moves beyond what has been agreed. I hope that within a matter of weeks, after the next general election, we will move to the narrow rate band of the exchange rate mechanism because there is a strong economic case for that. We have to keep up with the timetable leading to the possibility in 1997 of our voluntarily, with other countries, signing up to a single currency. As a result of the criteria set down by the agreement, we will have had to have been in the narrow rate band for two years. That means that we will have had to have been within that band by 1995. In

  599
  effect, whatever party is in government will have about 18 months to take that decision. It would be better to take that decision sooner rather than later because there will be a mass inflow of capital and a more immediate and sharper decline in interest rates and inflation.
  Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend has emphasised the importance of being at the top table to argue the case for Britain and to persuade the other nations to adopt more of our methods. He referred to the common agricultural policy. Is he aware that on 1 January the last vestige of the way in which this country manages its agricultural affairs disappeared with the ending of the sheepmeat variable premium scheme? Over 15 years we have influenced the way in which the CAP is conducted only in a minuscule way.
  Mr. Nelson: There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend has said. I represent a large agricultural constituency. My farmers may not like what I have to say, but I am deeply concerned about the operation of the CAP and the amount of money that we provide for its various schemes. However, it is not enough simply to withdraw from the CAP, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) would agree. We must have an alternative system.
  If the public were asked in a referendum, "Should we come out of the CAP?" the majority might well say yes. However, if we also asked, "Are you in favour of paying more to farmers through a national subsidy deficiency scheme?", they would probably say no to that, because that would cost more money.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend believe that the British public would say no to having their grocery bills reduced by £18 a week if we did away with the CAP? That is what it costs ordinary people.
  Mr. Nelson: I understand what my hon. Friend has said, but I am sure that she is not suggesting that if we were to pull out of the CAP we would not, in some way, support our own farming industry. Is she suggesting that we should do away with any form of deficiency payments? If she is prepared to preside over the consequences for British farming of supplying our own food, she must take responsibility for that. However, bearing in mind the kind of constituency that I represent, she will understand that I cannot agree with that.
  Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend has a long history of supporting the European Community cause. Therefore, I found it particularly interesting to hear him say that he felt that the CAP was little short of a disaster. If he did not use those words, that was the impression that he gave. If he is right, why should a common industrial policy, common social policy or common currency work any better?
  Mr. Nelson: Many aspects of the European Community have worked extremely well. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) might agree that there are benefits from customs union and the Single European Act and the single market. I do not know whether he would go as far as to accept that there are benefits from regional aid, but I believe that there have been benefits. I believe that the economic success of the exchange rate mechanism for this country and for other European countries, which has provided more stability and certainty, has been a real economic advantage.
  600
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport may not agree, but there are areas about which I believe, as passionately as my opponents disagree, that it is in our self-interest and in our financial interest to be in there at the head of the discussions and to exercise influence over the issues which, at the end of the day, will affect the standard of living of our constituents.
  For those reasons, it would be an error of judgment to give the Bill a Second Reading today. This is not an issue upon which to have a referendum. Referendums have their problems. If we were to grant the Bill a Second Reading today, it would be a slap in the face for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues who have achieved so much in balancing the fears arid aspirations in respect of the Maastricht agreement, in extending British influence within the Community and in opening up the economic and political opportunities that the agreement presents. All that would be brought into question. In view of our commitment to the European Community, having already had a referendum on the issue, if we were to have yet another on every aspect of progress in Europe, it would be widely misunderstood in the Community and greatly resented in this country in particular.
  For all those reasons, I have misgivings about the eloquent and sincere views of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. I hope that the House will put the matter behind it and, instead, will place greater emphasis on playing our part in Europe rather than adopting the scorched-earth policy of thinking again and trying to prevent progress towards fulfilling the aspirations that many of us still share.
  11 am
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is to be congratulated at the very least on giving us a chance to debate a constitutional issue. We have far too few opportunities to do so. I thought that it was a shame that the hon. Gentleman, in his eloquent speech, did not dwell on the constitutional implications of his Bill, but used it as a vehicle to bash Europe.
  That there are two issues is demonstrated by the fact that, so far, we have had anti-Europe, pro-referendum speeches. We have just listened to a pro-Europe, anti-referendum speech, and right hon. and hon. Members are about to hear a pro-Europe, pro-referendum speech. I have little doubt that, later, we will hear an anti-Europe, anti-referendum speech. Perhaps that analysis illustrates that there are two issues for consideration—not just the European one.
  I start by offering an opinion that is shared by a great many people in this country. I cannot claim that it represents the majority view, because I do not know that—perhaps because we have not had a referendum on the issue.
  What has wounded Europe most in the 20th century at any rate has been nationalism. What has killed the most people in Europe in the 20th century has been nationalism. The worst expression of nationalism has been totalitarianism. There are no important examples in which co-operation between democratic nation states has led to anything other than eventual peace, good sense, and joint developments in not only economic and military terms but cultural terms.

  601
  I was born just after the last war, and my generation has seen opportunities that were not available to my parents' generation. My father, now sadly deceased, was born in central Europe in 1904. He told me fascinating but frightening stories of the first world war. My mother, who fought in the Warsaw uprising, has told me horrific stories of the second world war. Those stories—they are not made-up, but factual—are founded upon the divisions that occurred in Europe because of narrow, nationalistic feelings.
  The greatest threat to the peace and stability of Europe today, and perhaps of the world, exists in that part of central and eastern Europe where there have been welcome moves to democratisation. I hope that those countries will become successful democracies and that they will be welcomed into—or at least come under the umbrella of—the European Community. I applaud the initiative of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in creating the know-how fund, which has done much to help, for example, the people of Poland—a country in which I take a particular interest. However, if we fail to help the countries of the Baltic, and the Balkans in particular, to democratise, there will be an outbreak of nationalism that will cause great debility in Europe.
  Nothing but good can come of intergovernmental co-operation, and the more co-operation the better. We heard an outburst of, if not anti-German feeling, caution about Germany. I share with many in this country—I say this frankly, and it should be said in the House from time to time—misgivings about the collective temperament of the Germans. However, we will not ensure that Germany remains our partner if we become isolated from that country. Germany is the most powerful nation in Europe in economic terms and it will probably become the most powerful in political terms. Insulating ourselves from Germany is more likely to lead to a repetition of the horrors of the earlier part of the century than the avoidance of them. If we are members of the same economic, political, and defence union as Germany—I do not use the word "union", which appears in the Maastricht treaty, with any reluctance—we will ensure the future peace of western Europe.
  Some hon. Members do less than justice to the people—even to the Governments—of such countries as France and the Netherlands. No country has a more noble European history than the Netherlands. No country has greater determination not to be part of Germany than the Netherlands. We do ill service to our view of France and the Netherlands, for example, if we pretend that they are in some way less interested in their own sovereignty and security than we are in ours. I venture to suggest that the 11 other members of the Community have, if anything, better reasons for protecting their own sovereignty and national interest than we have, because they suffered even more in the last war at least than the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not just nationalism that is the problem, but nationalism without democracy? I was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that we should encourage eastern European countries to move toward greater democracy, but does he agree that they are concerned about the direction that the European
  602
  federation is taking? That would cut at the roots of the freedom and democracy that those countries sought and want to sustain.
  Mr. Carlile: I do not understand the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As to the first part, we would have a greater problem if there were nationalism without democracy—but we would still have a problem if there were nationalism even with a measure of democracy. I remind the hon. Gentleman and others who hold a strongly anti-European Community opinion—and of course I respect their right to that view, but disagree with it—that paragraph 1 of article F of the Maastricht treaty states unequivocally that
  "The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States"—
  every one of those words counts; "Member States" count as much as "national identities"—
  "whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy."
  The implication seems to have crept into the debate that, in some way, the European Community might tolerate one of its member states abandoning democracy, for whatever reason. I do not believe that is the case. It is entrenched in the treaty that one of the prerequisites for belonging to the European Community is to be democratic. That is of itself the highest demonstration of its values and virtues.
  The Community is an organisation of member states in union, each with its own sovereignty intact. It creates, too, a different type of constitutional structure. We may have to look for a word different from "sovereignty" to describe that structure. I do not, however, believe for one moment that we have abandoned our sovereignty or that constitutional theorists seriously have a case for thinking so either.
  The European Community therefore presents an overwhelming political and economic case. It does ill to the debate if, as we heard earlier, it is turned into a discussion about whether we should have a single currency. We will have a single currency. The luddites on both sides of the House might as well recognise that fact once and for all. There is hardly a respected business person in the country who does not want a single currency and—despite the braying of their backwoodsmen—the Government appear close to recognising that.
  Mr. Spearing: I agree with much of the tone of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, but surely he is guilty of introducing a major non-sequitur in talking about the entrenchment of democracy. In Britain it is the House and our freedoms that defend our constitution and guarantee our democracy. If legislation is to be Communitywide, as indeed it is under the single market, and if there is to be a single currency—which the hon. Gentleman just espoused—a single economic policy and a single commercial policy towards third countries, does that system need something which is centrally democratic in order to entrench democracy in it? In effect, the union would then become a new democratic nation that transcended existing nationalities and the existing democratic institutions of this and other countries.
  Mr. Carlile: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is guilty of muddled thinking. The entrenchment of democracy is an internal matter. Each member state has its democracy entrenched in its own constitution, except in the case of the United Kingdom. I believe that we should

  603
  have a constitution in which democracy is entrenched. Our democracy is entrenched in the conventions of the House and—
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: And in its rituals.
  Mr. Carlile: And in the rituals of the House, as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) says—but that is a fuzzy way in which to entrench something as important as democracy.
  The Maastricht treaty reinforces our determination to retain democracy in Britain by telling us that if we abandon democracy, we will no longer be members of the European Community. That is good for Britain, which—it will come as no surprise to the House to hear me say this, as a Liberal Democrat—has the greatest democratic deficit in Europe. [Interruption.] I will resist the temptation that presents itself to Liberal Democrats on Fridays, to talk about proportional representation.
  I support the Bill because it is right that when great constitutional issues are debated, the public should be consulted. The Bill is a consultative measure only. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is wrong in his view of what the British public would be likely to say. However pro-European one is—even if one is a federalist—there is nothing to fear from consulting the British public about the European Community. There is plenty of evidence from opinion polls and elsewhere that they would support the Community.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I did not say what would be the outcome of the referendum. I am assiduous in saying that that is a judgment for the people. My conclusions are perhaps self-evident, but I have reached no conclusion about what decision the public would make. That is the essence of the Bill. It gives authority and, therefore, confidence to the movement forward in Europe. If vie do not hold a referendum, we shall be for ever stymied in the present arrangement, in which there is no clear affirmation from the people that we have followed the correct process.
  Mr. Carlile: Perhaps my comment was more appropriate to Conservative Members generally than to the hon. Gentleman.
  I turn to the important principle underlying the Bill. The House need never fear the public of Britain, unless it ignores them. The Bill does not insist that Parliament should follow the advice of the public in a referendum. Such advice would of course be given following a lengthy and fair campaign on the issue, but there is no doubt that that could be achieved.
  There are plenty of countries around the world where referendums take place and we even have a little experience of them in Britain. We can trust the public to give honest advice after the issues have been explained to them.
  There is currently far too much speculation about public opinion. It happens on an almost daily basis, sometimes even twice a day. We now have not only polls but polls of polls. They are perhaps a result of our failure to consult the public properly on many different matters.
  The Government of the time were right to consult the people of Scotland and of Wales about proposed constitutional changes affecting those parts of the United Kingdom, and it is a great pity that those precedents have not been followed more often. There should be another referendum on decentralisation in Wales, where my
  604
  constituency lies. I believe that if such a referendum were held today, there would be a different result from that of 1976.
  It would not be right to hold a referendum on matters that concern merely controversial Government policy. But it is essential, if the House is to command anything like public respect—there is little enough of it for us at present—that we consult the public on matters that are judged, preferably independently, to be of constitutional significance. The Bill is only one in a large bag of constitutional tools that we ought to entrench in a written constitution.
  We should have a Bill of Rights, proportional representation and an elected second chamber. We should have independent appointment of judges, and a constitutional court having responsibility for deciding whether a matter affects our constitutional arrangements in such a way that the public should be consulted in a referendum.
  I hope that in what remains of the debate, there will be more discussion not only of the European issue, which is of course vitally important for Britain, but of the wider principles that the hon. Gentleman has included in his Bill, which are worthy of much greater discussion.
  11.19 am
  Mr. James Cran: I was not quite ready to speak. I find it unusual to be called so early in a debate and I am especially grateful on this occasion.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): My apologies to the hon. Gentleman. I shall look elsewhere.
  Mr. Cran: No, you need not apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted because at least it allows me to speak on the subject, which I have been unable to do until now, despite the fact that there have been two debates on the Maastricht summit on which the Bill is centred. That illustrates the fact that important issues facing the United Kingdom are not given enough time for debate in the House, or at least not for people like me.
  I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on introducing the Bill, which, I say from the outset, I support, and on the manner in which he did it. I am also immensely impressed with the manner in which the House has reacted. There has been far too much yah-boo politics, especially in the past few weeks. There are far too many irritating practices—to put it mildly and gently—on and between these Benches. It is refreshing that for once everyone has sat back and listened to the arguments. We all undoubtedly listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I for one was perfectly prepared to listen to the counter-arguments; thereby one learns a little more about the issue, and I have.
  The Bill is centred on the Maastricht agreement. The memory dims and I suspect that that is exactly what the two Front Benches want to happen. We will come back after the general election—whenever it is—and say to ourselves that the Maastricht agreement was not so bad after all.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend must be joking.
  Mr. Cran: The Government and the Opposition would be joking if they thought that, but I have a feeling that that

  605
  is what they are thinking. A number of us are not prepared to allow the Government or the Opposition Front Bench to take that view.
  What was decided at Maastricht was as clear as crystal and I shall not forget it for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills put it succinctly when introducing the Bill. He said that the matter is of some constitutional importance and I agree. It is not like this, that or the next Bill which comes before the House. Although Bills are extremely important to the interests that they affect, the important point is that I and other hon. Members can affect them. I can speak either for or against them. However, that may not be the case with the range of legislation, proposals and whatever else that may come out of the European Community—proposals which will, I fear, come at even greater speed and quantity if the Maastricht summit is eventually agreed in the House.
  The agreement is definitely a question of the governance of the United Kingdom and is no less than that. That is why my hon. Friend for Aldridge-Brownhills was correct to introduce the Bill. I start from the same premise as my hon. Friend. I was sent here by no other device than the people of Beverley, who decided that I should come to the House. I represent them for the term of this Parliament and, at the end of that term, they will decide whether I stay. I think that they will probably decide that I should stay at the next general election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I am grateful for that show of confidence from my colleagues, which is not less than I deserve. Obviously, that is going to happen, but it should not be taken for granted and I do not take it for granted. Nor should any of us.
  The electorate sent me here to exercise their sovereignty. It is not for me to hand that away without even having the courtesy of asking them what they think about it.
  As with the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), my electorate know in crystal-clear terms where I stand on this issue. I venture to suggest that my electorate do not wish the agreement to be quietly decided by the Government's majority vote and the whipping vote, when it is eventually debated in the House.
  Mr. Nelson: That is not enough.
  Mr. Cran: I agree. My electorate want to be asked about the Maastricht agreement and that is why I support the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester correctly spoke at some length about referendums, their advantages and disadvantages. It would be wrong for me to suggest that there are only advantages—there are both and we all know perfectly well what they are. However, I agree with the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Whatever else I have discovered throughout my life, I know that I have infinite faith in the British people quietly to imbibe all the information given to them in their living rooms, by whatever means, and to come to a conclusion. It is insulting for any hon. Member to suggest that the British people are not intelligent enough to take in all the information and to come to a conclusion. They may come to what is, in my view, the wrong conclusion, but, none the less they are entitled to be given the right to do so.
  606
  In saying that, I again agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester who mentioned the question whether referendums should be used widely. Of course not. There are well-defined areas where many of us could agree that they should be used. Of course I am not in favour of referendums—of the sort they have in Switzerland—on whether we should have new doors on the town hall. Of course we will not go in for that. However, this issue is rather bigger than new doors for the town hall. It is rather more significant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, it concerns the governance of this country.
  I respectfully suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that the order of importance shows which issues should be subject to referendums. I am confident that the Maastricht agreement should by this measure be subject to one organised for the purpose.
  Until now, I have not been allowed to speak on the agreement. I am told—especially by the Government—that the treaty is self-contained, that all the caveats on it have been achieved, and that there are opt-out clauses and separate protocols, in particular the protocol on the social dimension. By those devices it is alleged we protect our sovereignty because the Government know perfectly well that there is a certain feeling about the subject in the House and in the country. They have tried to protect our interests by those devices. The question is whether they have succeeded. In my humble opinion, the Government have not. One must consider the intentions of all those people sitting round the table at the summit. I am perfectly clear about the intentions of some of the major players in that discussion. I do not think that they were round the table to get an agreement to the Maastricht summit merely to have a Europe made up of a confederation of sovereign states in the old 19th century view of sovereign states.
  Alas, I am old enough to remember the debate when we first entered the Common Market. We debated the matter for several years, culminating in a referendum. Those in favour said—in retrospect it was a lot of soft soap—that we were not drifing into federalism, there would not be a European super-state, all decision making would remain in Parliament, and our electorates would decide. If those of us who are fairminded, which means all of us, look back at those statements—I remember the hon. Members who made them—and compare them with what has happened, we shall see chalk and cheese. I repeat that we were dealt a load of soft soap. We were on a slippery slope then and we are on one now. We are at the Rubicon, which means that there is no going back if the treaty is agreed by the House. That is why I believe that my electorate should have the right to say what they think about crossing the Rubicon.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Can my hon. Friend name a single enthusiast for the federal goal of Europe, in Europe or in this country, who believes that the Maastricht treaty has been a step in that direction?
  Mr. Cran: I understand my right hon. Friend's question, but I was concentrating on the wide gap in the original debate between what was said and what eventually occurred, and I was arguing that I fear that the same will happen again. I said that it would depend on what the parties involved in the agreement were saying. In this regard I must admit that I am immensely unimpressed by the fact that no hon. Member has mentioned that Mr.

  607
  Kohl—who is rather more important in this matter because it is often said that the European Community, or union, will be dominated by the Germans—said clearly on 23 May 1991 at the Europa Institute in Edinburgh:
  "Europe will be a federal Europe".
  I am singularly uninterested in what some hon. Members may say about federalism, but I am very interested in what Mr. Kohl said.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I understand my hon. Friend's point about the past. It is probably true that, until recently, the whole thrust of the development of the European Community was toward a single structure or, as we call it, a federal structure. My hon. Friend will know that the word, "federal" means something different to Chancellor Kohl. However, one of the triumphs of the Maastricht treaty for the Government and the Prime Minister is that, far from bringing that debate to a federalist conclusion, it has opened up a debate and a prospect of a wider, intergovernmental Europe which I believe is more satisfactory to the instincts of the House and the British people and which, in due course, if we fight that argument robustly in Europe, will carry the day.
  Mr. Cran: I have no difficulty in agreeing with my right hon. Friend that the Prime Minister went to Maastricht and hammered out a good deal—some would say a very fine deal. He understood perfectly well the feelings in the House. After the general election, however, hon. Members on both sides of the House may be freer to express their feelings on the issue, uninhibited no doubt by the proximity of a general election. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the protocol, the social dimension and the fact that the United Kingdom is not, prima facie, totally committed to economic union. However, having agreed to the treaty in principle, we are on a slippery slope. Many of my hon. Friends are worried about that, too.
  Mr. Favell: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend and the Minister. It is true to say that the Maastricht treaty was not the federal finality that people such as President Mitterrand and the Chancellor Kohl wanted. However, in 1996, perhaps before the election after the forthcoming one, there will be more intergovernmental conferences and another treaty, which will put the final nail in the coffin for those who want an independent United Kingdom.
  Mr. Cran: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Despite the fact that I was slightly abashed earlier to hear about his antecedents and where they came from, I still have the utmost confidence in him and implicitly trust his judgment. He is absolutely correct. The kernel of the issue is not only the slippery slope argument but, as he eloquently pointed out—I was going to discuss it later in my speech—the fact that there will be other intergovernmental conferences and agreements. By that device, the ratchet effect will proceed.
  Mr. Garel-Jones indicated dissent—
  Mr. Cran: The Minister shakes his head and I respect his view. However, he must understand that those who feel as I do fear that the ratchet effect will continue.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Surely my hon. Friend must share my confidence in the ability, not just of our party but of this Parliament and the British people, to win that argument in Europe. Of course, the argument goes on and some people in Europe still dream of a unitary super-state. There is
  608
  nothing sinful about that. The Conservative party and Parliament as a whole are confident that we can win that debate, which is far from over. My hon. Friend will recall that, during the intergovernmental conference, the presidency presented a text that was a federalist tract. He will also recall that that text was supported by only two of 12 member states, so the argument is far from lost. We can and will win it.
  Mr. Cran: My right hon. Friend is being characteristically winning and persuasive and using the precise language, so how in heaven's name could I possibly disagree with some parts of his proposition? Of course, I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet know where the marker points are in that argument, but I am less clear about what will happen once they leave the scene. There will be other faces who may take a different view about the whole proposition. Consequently, if as a Member of Parliament I give way now, that will open the door for someone in the future to say yes, notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said no—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends make compelling points. May I return, however, to my original argument about the Rubicon? I believe that I have a right, as do my constituents, to say yea or nay to that collection of proposals.
  As has been pointed out, particularly by the Minister, the treaty has been tightly drawn. There is no question about that. Therefore, if one is simply to go on that fact, notwithstanding the protestations of some of my hon. Friends, one might simply say that we should proceed because of all the opt-out clauses and protocols. However, the intention is the important aspect and my view of the intentions of some of the major players in the Maastricht agreement is that, ultimately, they want what the treaty speaks of and what hon. Members who have already spoken have already alluded to—a European union. For goodness sake, let us all speak plain language. What does a European union mean if not that we all get together at this, that or the other conference to decide matters between us which might be different if we decided them separately?
  Mr. Favell: A Scot would know what the word "union" means.
  Mr. Cran: I shall not be put off by that.
  There have already been perceptible changes in British foreign policy, where the United Kingdom might have taken one view—I think especially of Croatia or the Gulf—but its policy has been surreptitiously changed by European conferences. That is not to say that I am not in favour of reaching, as far as we can, a common position. However, if the United Kingdom does not agree with the common position, it should not proceed with it. I shall not continue for much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker, because several hon. Members wish to speak and, as always, I am conscious of that.
  The issue was summed up by the Financial Times on 12 December 1991. Of course, the Financial Times is not the final arbiter of these matters; it merely takes an opinion, as we all take an opinion. However, it is a fairly sober and authoritative source of opinion. It said:
  "The Maastricht Treaty is indeed the biggest milestone in the Community's 34-year history. It contains, among the goals cited in its preamble, many of the attributes—common citizenship, defence and money—of a potential Eurosuperstate."

  609
  I would not go that far, but I go far enough to suggest that we are on a slippery slope. I want the United Kingdom to take its own decisions on all the major issues on defence, the economy and foreign affairs similar to which a sovereign state should take. That does not preclude co-operation with our European partners and, on that device, I am as good a European as anybody else. It is on that principle that I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and I end as I began, by congratulating him.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The last four speeches lasted for 24, 23, 19 and 22 minutes respectively. Will you be making your customary appeal for brief speeches?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has done the job very nicely.
  11.42 am
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: If not brief, I hope to be pungent and to the point. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has left the Chamber. Although he may have honourably made clear his position on these matters to his electorate, the reason for this debate on a possible referendum is the fact that successive Governments—I am being neutral for the moment—did not seek any mandate from the electorate in the elections prior to the signing of the treaty of accession or the Single European Act—or, indeed, the signing of what is being called the treaty of Maastricht.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), I am not delighted to be supporting the Bill, although reluctantly and for certain reasons I may do so. All referendums have many of the disadvantages that were referred to by the hon. Member for Chichester—the manoeuvrability of the question, the dangling of a hope or promise and the spectre of fear if one does say yes. Most important, does the person answering the question have a real understanding of the fundamentals or is he really answering another question, "Will you trust our Harold" or something like that? That was the reaction of many people in 1975. Were those who should be in the know aware at the time of the actual questions and issues?
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—who is not with us; I wish that he had stayed—claimed that democracy was entrenched in the United Kingdom and, he thought, unsatisfactorily in this House. At the time of that referendum, the same Harold Wilson—as he then was—quite properly relied on the unwritten Luxembourg agreement and said that no law could be passed in Brussels without the consent of a British Minister—but he had forgotten, as I had, that the common agricultural policy was then the subject of majority voting. If there had been a referendum that asked, "Are you prepared to enter the European Community, where the laws relating to agriculture, food prices and the whole of the relationship between the soil and the natural environment of the United Kingdom is to be decided by people not of our nationality beyond our shores?" I am confident that the answer would have been no.
  Of course, it did not happen like that; the referendum did not ask that question. Therefore, I say to the hon.
  610
  Member for Chichester and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that there cannot be proper democracy without proper debate and representative democracy as we have always had it—that is, a mandate from the people. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that a centralised, lawmaking machine, such as we have at the moment by treaty—and without Maastricht—means that the European Community can have democracy entrenched only if it is dealt with by central, not national, institutions.
  Mr. Cash: What makes the hon. Gentleman believe that the average person in this country is not capable of making up his or her mind on such a matter? What might make the hon. Gentleman think that Members of Parliament, many of whom have not even seen the documents, let alone read them, would be in a better position to form a judgment on this question?
  Mr. Spearing: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. For reasons that most of us understand, but which I do not have time to enunciate, the matter has not yet been debated in the House.
  That brings me neatly to the next point mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester and also by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on a radio programme this morning. I listened to him with some incredulity because usually I have some sympathy with his views on these matters. Surely we all agree that the debate, if that is what it is, on Maastricht has been about three matters—the desirability of economic and monetary union; the question of a British opt-out; and the social chapter. That debate was intra-party as much as it was wider.
  There was no real understanding of the fundamentals that we were being asked to accept. Indeed, we may be asked to agree to the fundamentals shortly after the next election and perhaps before July is out—because any Government, and there could be four varieties within a few months, will surely want to have achieved some agreement on the treaty of Maastricht if only because they, whoever they might be, will hold the presidency. I question what proper debate there will be in Parliament before then. That is not to say that there should not be a passable longstop as well. The referendum is a safety longstop, although I have doubts about its efficacy.
  I come now to a point that I hope will be dealt with soon by the Minister. In an exchange a few minutes ago, he claimed that the debate is about real intergovernmental co-operation and nothing to do with any deterministic stuff where the Commission will be influential and tell us what to do, with Mr. Delors riding high and so on—this is a new sort of treaty. I was about to say that that was the impression that he gave and I note that he is nodding his head. He has agreed to what I hope was not an exaggeration.
  Who has really had a look at the yellow pages of the treaty? Beattie has not, has she? If there is to be a referendum, Beattie will be voting just as much as anybody else. The Government's presentation of the document is quite undemocratic. Inside this bundle of papers that I have with me, which arrived in the Vote Office only on Tuesday and is signed by the Foreign Secretary as the Queen's plenipotentiary, we find an extraordinary collection of legal jargon. We find a completely new treaty of union with lettered articles from A to S. Article G incorporates the whole of the treaty of Rome within the

  611
  new union treaty. Article J deals with the whole of our common foreign and security policy. Article K deals with justice and home affairs.
  Mr. Garel-Jones indicated assent.
  Mr. Spearing: I see the Minister nodding his head. We have an overarching treaty.
  Mr. Garel-Jones indicated assent.
  Mr. Spearing: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman nods.
  In the past in conversations and in the press there has been talk of trunk and pillars. The Prime Minister told us that there was a great victory in ensuring that, instead of having everything under the treaty of Rome with the Commission playing a major part, we had some pillars outside the treaty. It looks as though the pillars have got mixed up in the trunk. I cannot see very much that is outside the scope of the union treaty—I should be interested to hear from the Minister what parts are. I may be wrong. This is an extremely difficult group of documents to get through.
  We start with articles A to F of the common, overarching treaty of union. We then have a vast number, about 150, new articles to the treaty of Rome. Then we go on to the consequential amendments, which are probably not very important, to the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Then we get no fewer than 89 paragraphs of protocols to the treaty of Maastricht, which hang somewhere between the union treaty and the treaty of Rome. I should be obliged if the Minister would tell us which they are. We then have no fewer than 33 declarations. Altogether, that adds up to 300-odd new articles to the written constitution of the European Community. We must remember that some articles remain in its constitution, so the total is about 700 altogether. That is what we in this Chamber face over the coming months, yet we have not gone about revealing or discussing what is there at all well.
  One major point—the vexed matter of subsidiarity—has caused a great deal of discussion. The Prime Minister and Conservative Members have raised subsidiarity up as a great safeguard. It is about time that we had it absolutely straight. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the exegesis that I will now attempt on article 3b of the amended treaty of Rome.
  After referring to the Community, article 3b refers to
  "areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence."
  what commercial, monetary, economic, external commercial matters and so on do not fall within the exclusive competence of the EEC? We should have a list. Only those matters that are not within the Community's exclusive competence can be dealt with by subsidiarity. Article 3b continues that the Community shall act in those areas
  "only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States."
  What is sufficient? What is can or cannot, might be or might not? It is a matter of judgment. The article continues that in those areas the Community shall take action in accordance with subsidiarity only if the objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved and can therefore,
  "by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community."
  All those are matters of subjective judgment. One can go on for hours on this sort of mobile pattern. It is rather like
  612

  those toys that we had years ago that hang from the ceiling. A balance of judgment is involved and we could argue for years. In the end, it will be for the European Court to decide whether subsidiarity applies.
  I close on the matter of citizenship. All of us here are proud of being citizens of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has returned for these closing remarks. He will agree that we are also citizens of the world. We can be good citizens of the world community only if we are good citizens of our local and national community—
  Mr. Alex Carlile:And the international community.
  Mr. Spearing:—and the international community. The hon. and learned Gentleman struck the right tone in his remarks. There is such a thing as wholesome nationalism, which might be called community spirit, and there is unwholesome nationalism, of which he spoke and of which we have various experiences. Unless we can entrench some form of democracy in our national citizenship, we are likely to engender the forces of nasty nationalism that both he and I abhor and which we are all seeing in parts of Europe today. The only alternative is a form of centralised democracy that destroys the nation as we know it and, with it, the citizenship of the United Kingdom, the power of this House and the power of our people to govern themselves.
  11.56 am
  Mr. Ian Taylor: This has been a fascinating debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) opened the debate with a remarkable speech which was a tour de force and gave us a good profile of the history of referendums, what they meant and when they might be applicable. I hope that he will accept my apologies if, because of constituency business, I am not here for the final stages of the debate.
  There are two questions before the House this morning. First, is it desirable that a referendum should be a more regular part of the British way of running our political affairs? Secondly, would the treaties that arose from Maastricht be suitable subjects for a referendum if that were to be a practical means of carrying on our affairs?
  I must voice doubts about whether referendums are a suitable part of British political life. I have always been reluctant to accede to the arguments for referendums because they undermine the principle of democracy that we have adopted at Westminster, of which we are justifiably proud. Despite the excellent historical insights of my hon. Friend, the whole purpose of a referendum so far has been largely to get a Government out of a problem rather than necessarily for some overreaching constitutional motivation. That was certainly the case in the 1970s when there was a referendum on our membership of the European Community.
  The problem with a referendum is that often it is only practicable if the question can be reduced to its simplest form. That is not because the electorate cannot understand. Of course the electorate can understand many things about our political system and the policies put before it. That is why we usually get a sensible result at general elections and the Conservative party usually wins. Unless the question can be made simple, a referendum is not the right way to proceed.
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Taylor: No, I should like to get into my speech.
  Our Westminster system of democracy allows issues that are often complex affairs such as this to be debated in the Chamber and various aspects to be pulled together. It is then for the Government of the day to carry through the decision, whatever that decision may be. The supremacy of Westminster is an important facet of the way that we run our affairs. It is an important reason for the stability of this country where we are not subjected to wild upheavals. Issues that can be reduced to a simple question are not the way to conduct our affairs. I prefer to have the complex debates that we can have, even though there are such things as Whips, although they are not supposed to be mentioned in polite company. There are other ways, however, of conducting our discussions in the House and of informing ourselves. Those who are interested in a particular subject are more than capable of informing themselves about Maastricht. As I look around the Chamber, I see many hon. Members who have participated in the European debates that we have held in recent years.
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend note that under the—protocol on the transition to the third stage of economic and monetary union the fact is that, irrespective of the other protocol that enables us to opt out of it for the time being, we should be precluded from exercising any veto over our entry, as a Community, into economic and monetary union in the third stage? Does not my hon. Friend therefore perceive that what he is saying is absolutely at the heart of the question whether the British people will have the freedom of choice to determine their economic and social priorities because of the nature of the institution of the central bank? Does he not think that that could easily be reduced through, say, Mr. Speaker's Conference or an independent commission to a question that would be evenly balanced and would put the British people in the position of being able to make a free choice about a free democracy?
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is a great expert on constitutional matters and I bow to his wisdom, but he will know that the principle negotiated at Maastricht by the British Government is that this House of Commons will make the decision prior to the transition. I have read all the yellow pages, just as my hon. Friend has. He knows that the House will have that right. It is a very important point. What the Government have done is, in effect, to enshrine what I am saying: that Westminster should make the decision. That is the basis of my argument for being reluctant to agree to a referendum as a way of conducting our affairs.
  Mr. Gill rose—
  Mr. Favell rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I believe in the supremacy of Westminster and that that principle should be enshrined. I see that my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Stockport (Mr. Favell) are trying to intervene. I know that Madam Deputy Speaker is anxious that I should not give way on too many occasions, but I shall give way to one of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Gill: My intervention will be brief. Does my hon. Friend not recognise that the essential point in the case
  614
  that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is that, in the unique circumstances where a majority of Opposition Members take the view that is shared by the majority of my hon. Friends, when it comes to a general election the electorate will not be given the right to make a choice about these important and fundamental constitutional issues? The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is that only by having a referendum will they be given that choice and that it would be wrong to deny them that choice.
  Mr. Taylor: I regard that argument as slightly dangerous. The reality is that, when one votes in a general election, one votes for the party that one believes can best look after a whole series of complex issues on behalf of the nation, not one particular issue. That is another reason why I think that the country as a whole should vote for a Government who can deal with all the issues, including issues as complex as this. When it comes to the general election, regardless of the fact that the parties may appear to agree about the main thrust of the issue, they will approach the issue in very different ways. There are already distinct differences of approach between the two Front Benches. There is a particularly distinct difference when it comes to the views of the Liberals, who start with the principle that they would prefer to have a European federal, centralist state rather than Westminster itself. Many of the Liberals, in debates that I have had with them outside the Chamber, have openly said that.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I shall willingly give way to a constitution-monger.
  Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when he uses the term central federal state it shows that he does not understand what he is talking about? The whole concept of federalism is that one does not have centralisation. One has government that is devolved to parts of the federation. He has no authority to talk about Liberal or Liberal Democrat policy—I am not sure whether he is being particular or general—unless he understands the concepts.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not know about the debates that I have had with other members of his party. Many Liberals take many different views, depending on the circumstances, on these issues. Of course I understand the difference. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will see that I intend to turn to the federal issue. The word "federal" is a false friend and a false enemy. It means different things to different people.
  Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Taylor: No; I must make progress.
  Mr. Favell: My intervention would help my hon. Friend's argument.
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely wonderful offer, which I must accept.
  Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend and I have crossed swords on this subject on many occasions. A moment ago he said that at the general election the people of this country will vote for who is to govern the country and who should form the Government. What concerns people like me, however,

  615
  is whether the government of this country is to pass elsewhere. People will not be asked that fundamental question at the election. Why should they not be asked that fundamental question?
  Mr. Taylor: I shall cover the point made by my hon. Friend, but first I must make progress with my speech.
  Federalism can mean all things to all people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said, to the Germans "federal" means decentralisation of power. Therefore, it is a false friend. What we must look at is where the negotiations are taking us in the Community. The European Community was founded in the 1950s on political grounds. We used to refer to it as an economic Community. It was an economic Community because economics was the way to deliver political objectives. They ran side by side, but they were also closely interlinked. The point made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is valid today in terms of the relationship between the French and the Germans. It was certainly valid in the 1950s. Times have not changed.
  The reason that the French were keen to develop the Community in the 1950s was that they realised that they must not repeat the mistakes that were made after the first world war when the policy towards Germany was almost to force it into some form of isolation and to enforce reparations. The French understood that the way to bring Germany back to a strong position within the landmass of Europe was to make political concessions and to enter joint structures that would enable both nations to grow together, although at the outset that might have appeared to reduce French sovereignty over many decisions that otherwise they would have taken independently. That was the motivation for the Community.
  It is interesting to note that that political aspect of the Community, which caused many of the countries that joined the European Free Trade Association to stay outside, has become the greatest catalyst for change in the wider Europe and has meant that the Community has been a successful institution both internally and for change in Europe as a whole. The members of EFTA are now knocking at the door not only of an economic agreement with the Community but of a political arrangement, since that would be implied if they entered full membership.
  The strength of the Community is something that we should have accepted all the way through. When we joined the Community in the 1970s we left EFTA to join not an economic bloc but a political organisation where there was a clear framework, provided in the treaty of Rome, that implied certain concessions by Britain as a nation—not least that ultimately there would be supremacy of law through the European Court of Justice. Those decisions were taken in the 1970s.
  The act of joining the Community committed us to changing our way of political life to embrace aspects of the constitution of the European Community. That was debated and agreed in the House. Subsequently, and rightly—I played an active part in the campaign—it was confirmed in the referendum. The question was straightforward and was, in effect, "Do you want in or out?"
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Rubbish. It was, "Do you want to withdraw?"
  Mr. Taylor: The British people clearly decided that they wanted to stay in the Community.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: No. I will not be distracted from my point. I was involved in the campaign, so I understand. That was the effective question.
  Since that time, Britain has been acting in accordance with the treaties of Rome and has embraced their implications. We have often had difficult debates in the House because we have not fully appreciated the implications of what was agreed.
  I was not a Member when the Single European Act was passed, but several of its chapter headings were clear. However, we tended to think that they would never happen, partly because they were not subject to qualified voting.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: We did not.
  Mr. Cash: We did not.
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friends were far sighted, and no doubt they contributed to the debate. The reality is that those headings were included.
  Under the Maastricht treaties, we have taken further steps forward within the confines of the treaties of Rome, such as new agreements on voting patterns. That is not a new principle but merely development of an existing principle.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I will give way at the end of this section so that the hon. Gentleman can see it in the round.
  There is a new factor—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) for cross-talk.
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for your protective intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  A new factor has emerged from the treaty of Maastricht. The object of the Community has always been to achieve ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe. Interestingly, under the Maastricht agreement, the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe can be furthered outside the confines of the rule of law of the European Court of Justice. That is the pillar approach that my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned this morning, to which I am sure he will return later.
  There is, therefore, a new dimension in the treaties of Maastricht, but it is less worrying to those who are concerned about the overall nature of the Community than it would have been if the separate pillars of foreign policy and justice had been brought within the institutions of the Community.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but perhaps we could have prevented the contretemps if he had done so earlier. May I take him back to what he alleged was the question in the referendum? I agree that that may have been the effective question in some people's minds, but surely he will agree that the actual question was something like this: "Do you agree with remaining a member of the European Economic Community on the terms recently renegotiated by Her Majesty's Government? Yes or no?" Since the Government distributed half the "Yes" literature, it was

  617
  not surprising that the vote was two to one in favour. The hon. Gentleman may think that that was an endorsement of our entry, but it was nothing of the sort.
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for that intervention, which underlines my concern about referendums being a good way of doing things. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help in furthering my argument.
  At Maastricht, we further developed something on which we were already clearly set. We have broadened the debate by showing that we can move towards ever-closer union with the peoples of Europe without being solely constrained within the treaty of Rome and the institutions set up under it. But the principle of our co-operation within the European Community, the principle that we are a stronger nation through that co-operation and the principle that the European Community and European union are a strong defence of the interests of ourselves and European partners in a difficult world, were decided when we joined in the 1970s. It is not a question that can be put to the British people at each stage of the fulfilment of that path. The original question was put, and I should like to ensure that, under our presidency later this year, the nature, development and character of the Community are heavily influenced by a Conservative Government so that the things for which I stand are better reflected than they would be if the Labour party were in charge of the country. That is the real debate and question before the House.
  12.15 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: The House listened with proper attention to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who moved the Second Reading eloquently, passionately and with conviction. Having heard him in similar debates, I know that that is characteristic of him.
  As the hon. Gentleman argued with that passion, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) sat two rows behind him. I wondered why she found it impossible to include him in her Government, especially given some of the Ministers whom she included. I pay him the compliment that he would have been much better than many of those whom she preferred, but the right hon. Lady has not stayed long enough to express a view on the Bill, so we shall watch the Division list with considerable interest.
  The House should not be charmed or captivated by the arguments that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills advanced, however passionately he did so. I do not believe that the House should support the Bill and I shall explain why.
  The subject had a higher profile when the hon. Member chose it for his private Member's Bill. It had the celebrity backing of the right hon. Member for Finchley, of, rather surprisingly, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—a fairly glittering array of supporters, not all of whom are in the House today to support it.
  Things have moved on slightly, although the arguments still exist. It was interesting to see the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), surrounded by his hon. Friends, use the most technical description. I recall the old story of being surrounded by one's enemies and looking across at
  618
  one's opponents, but differences exist on both sides. The subject divides the country, but not as widely as people suggest, and certainly there are passionate views within the parties. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) does not reflect the entire view of the Liberal Democratic party. Its spokesman on European affairs made it clear that he did not agree with the idea of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. But the issues are important and this is a valuable debate, especially as most hon. Members who are in the Chamber populate European debates, as I have for many years.
  One aspect of this continuing debate that worries me is the view that what is wrong with the European Community, the European Communities Act 1972, the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986 and what undoubtedly will be European Communities further amendment Act in the new Parliament is that we shall be told what to do by foreigners. In the article that he wrote in The Guardian the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said:
  "The search for consent that is particular to Britain can be gainsaid by a combination of other nations who neither share our language, common law or common public opinion."
  It is as if the cultural difference between those on the continent who might outvote us in terms of qualified majority voting and ourselves was the real root of the objection to the pooling of sovereignty to which the hon. Gentleman is so violently opposed. However, I do not associate him with the ideas of others.
  The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) said that he could speak with conviction because he was half German. He said that the Germans never go to a picnic without wanting to run it. Even the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in the context of other peoples and other nations might have been found objectionable not only to the House or to his party but perhaps to the law itself. I worry that we may be considering the issue in terms of this country versus other nations, as distinct from other people.
  The Bill is not about the principle of referendums. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made that clear at the beginning. It is a Bill about treaties and relates specifically to the treaty negotiated and signed at Maastricht. We are not holding a generalised debate about the benefits of a referendum on specific subjects—we are talking about the Maastricht treaty and it is to Maastricht that we must look.
  The question to be decided is only whether a referendum is the appropriate way to take a decision on the Maastricht treaty or whether that decision is more properly to be taken by Parliament itself. Consequential legislation will be necessary for the treaty and we are told that it can only come and will only come in the new Parliament after the general election. Therefore, the next Parliament will have the decisive say on whether this country will subscribe to the treaty signed on behalf of Her Majesty by the Foreign Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury two weeks ago in the Dutch town of Maastricht.
  Clearly, the treaty is significant. It is far reaching and has wide implications but it is not, contrary to what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, irrevocable and irreversible. No treaty can be or will be.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman has made a most outrageous statement, which shows that he has not read the protocol on the transition to the third stage. It refers clearly and unequivocally to
  "the irreversible character of the Community's movement to the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union."
  Furthermore, it states that whether or not we
  "fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of a single currency",
  all member states shall carry out these obligations and no member states
  "shall prevent the entering into the third stage."
  It continues that that stage will be entered into irrevocably on 1 January 1999. So what on earth is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
  Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make the political point about why it was signed, he will no doubt direct that question to the Minister who will inevitably participate in the debate. However, despite the political declaration and the treaty commitment involved, there is no obligation on this or any Government to continue within any treaty if they do not desire to do so. Greenland has already opted out of the European Community as a whole, so there is no irrevocable commitment involved other than in the political context of signing the treaty and giving the political commitment to proceed with whatever has been entered into. Any future Parliament will be in a position to revoke this or any other treaty. Instead of dancing around on the head of a constitutional pin, we must get down to the fine points.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Robertson: I intend to deal with a number of issues. I know that the hon. Gentleman—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Tell the truth about Greenland.
  Mr. Robertson: Greenland left the European Community. They decided to do so and were allowed to do so.
  So far in this debate we have spoken of the constitutional purity of this country. I worry about being able to represent my constituents, whether it be in Scotland, the United Kingdom or Europe. In the context of the way in which this country is run, it is extremely important that we ensure that we are able to do so, but how are we to ensure within United Kingdom laws that that will have a firm place? How can we wholly regulate the air that we breathe? We no longer live in a country which is finite or which has complete integrity over the air that can waft across the channel. If it proved nothing else, the explosion of Chernobyl showed how vulnerable and interdependent we are on the continent of Europe.
  What sovereignty does this country still have over the money markets which in many ways determine the economic environment in which we live? What real power does the Chancellor of the Exchequer have over interest rate policy in a European Community where there are dominant economies? What absolute sovereignty have we over environmental pollution, over the water we drink and over our beaches? What total and absolute sovereignty are we defending over the activities of multinational companies?
  Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is talking the most arrant nonsense. It is simple propaganda. He knows perfectly well that if we were not in the exchange rate mechanism
  620
  now, we would have a real choice about not only interest rates but exchange rates. The idea that that is not true is quite misleading.
  Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion. If it is his opinion that we would have absolute control over our interest rate policy if we were outside the ERM, I beg to differ. The United States and Japan have control over their interest rate policies, and if we had an economy as strong as those of the United States and of Japan, we would have more control over ours than we do. It is a fantasy that there is an economic sovereignty out there that we can simply leap to if we leave the ERM or the embrace of the European Community. We cannot go in that direction. One of the signal features about those who preach against development of the European Community and further integration with Europe is that they do not provide a sensible alternative for Britain outside the way in which we are going.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I find it hard to reconcile what he is saying about the powers of the Front Bench with what the leader of his party is telling us about the Prime Minister and his responsibility for the recession that we are in. The two do not square up.
  Mr. Robertson: Of course they square up, because although we live in an interdependent European economy, individual Governments can take measures to relieve the plight of their population. The recession in this country is not nearly as bad as it is in the other countries of the European Community and a major responsibility for that lies in the hands of those in this Government who have controlled our economic policy for the past 13 years. They cannot get away with excusing the iniquities from which our people suffer on the ground that it is all due to world economic conditions.
  There is no constitutional blockage to the holding of referendums, and I am not suggesting that there should be. We have had four referendums so far, and I played a part in two of them. I did not play a part in the one in Northern Ireland or the one in Wales, but in 1975 I played a part in the referendum on the European Community in which the result was a 2:1 majority in favour of continued membership. However, this debate, like the many other debates in the intervening period, shows that the referendum did not end the arguments.
  In 1979, there was a referendum on the Scotland Bill, which resulted in a majority in favour of change. Because of the rules that were imposed and because of the withdrawal of support by the Scottish National party, 'the will of the Scottish people was never put into effect, and the argument has not stopped. The debate goes on—the referendum did not resolve the issue.
  When we approach the question that would be the basis of the referendum advocated by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills serious practical issues have to be addressed. What question will be put? The hon. Gentleman might have some idea, but it is not answered simply.
  Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No, I will not give way at the moment.
  Are the electorate to be given a whole copy of the treaty —the yellow document that has been waved about so much today—because if so, the purple document would

  621
  have to go along as well. People would need to make up their minds on all the available information if they are to be asked only about the treaty. Will the question be about the principle of economic and monetary union? Although the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is more concerned about constitutional issues and the political union aspect of the treaty, others have their own interests such as the single currency and monetary union. Will the question be about the timetable to monetary union or about the United Kingdom's right to opt out?
  Will the question be about the increased powers for the European Parliament, although those powers will at least give back to the representatives of the people the accountability for decisions that the European Single Act took from them and handed to the Council of Ministers? Will the question relate to the increase in qualified majority voting?
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman said that he had taken part in two referendums, including the one in which both he and I took part—that on continued membership of the Community, or the Common Market as it was then called, on the basis of the renegotiated terms. There is nothing complex about referendums. We could ask the simple question, "Do you wish to accept the Maastricht treaty?" It is the duty of the campaign to inform, to advise and to set out the argument, just as it is in every general election campaign. We shall be putting in front of the electorate complex arguments on the ERM, monetary policy and a whole range of policies. Through that educative process, listening to what the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will say, the people will make a judgment. These are highly complex issues, but the questions can be simple.
  Mr. Robertson: I do not disagree with the ballot box, and the sooner that we get to it, the better it will be for the country. This Government have been running away from the ballot box for well over a year. The opportunity and the demand have been there, but the Government have had no desire to go anywhere near the ballot box. I have nothing to fear from the ballot box or from the complicated issues. I will simply put the issues and explain the complexities of the questions that might be put and then return to what I believe to be the sensible way in which to deal with questions of such seriousness and complexity.
  Majority voting was not introduced by the Maastricht treaty—indeed, the increase in qualified majority voting in the Maastricht treaty was tiny in comparison to the extension of qualified majority voting that came with the Single European Act. The right hon. Member for Finchley, who graced us with a brief appearance earlier, was responsible not just for the signing of the Single European Act but for ramming the legislation through the House on a guillotine without allowing us a major debate on the points that we wanted to discuss.
  Is what the Maastricht treaty says on common foreign and security policy different from the general principle that we conceded when we signed the North Atlantic treaty in 1949? How will immigration and asylum policies be developed in a continent facing all the pressures of increased immigration that may result from the economic instability in eastern Europe? Should there be a question
  622
  about the social chapter opt-out that the Government have signed, which has led to our isolation on a whole series of issues? Those are some of the complications that might be involved in the questions. Those are the difficulties which would be faced by anyone seeking to draft a question to put before the British people.
  The real question is whether there should be one omnibus question in one referendum or whether it should be the role of Members of Parliament to weigh up all the issues involved, to judge their effect and then to be judged, as all hon. Members are, at a subsequent election. Those who demand a referendum—and those who associate themselves with that demand through their hostility to the European Community as a whole, which is not necessarily the view of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—on the one hand attack Europe because it has taken power, or will seek to take power, away from the Westminster Parliament while, on the other, they happily argue for Westminster to be robbed of its crucial function of weighing up the issues on behalf of the people. That is one of our weightiest roles. Sometimes we are blinded by the visibility of the accountability of the House, believing that it is the only form of accountability that matters. Because we are part of it, and because television now takes our image into households, we may think that this is all that accountability means. We must look deep down to where the decisions are being taken and where accountability properly lies.
  Surely the time has come to stop this endless and uniquely British debate on the theology of being in or getting out of Europe, or being half-in or half-out of Europe—whether we will accept this proposal or that proposal in the legislation. The real issue before the people of this country is what we must do to make the European Community work for Britain and the whole of Europe in a tough and merciless world. Only Britain spends so much of its time pulling up the plant endlessly to examine the roots. Others in the Community are going ahead, working out how to get the best deal and, often, how to get the rules adopted to suit themselves. We inevitably come in belatedly and have to accept the rules on which others have decided.
  The Maastricht treaty will be a step forward to a more integrated, perhaps closer and in some ways more sensible Europe. It is not perfect. We have made known our objections to what the Prime Minister negotiated at Maastricht. It is not a final step in European integration —it cannot even be described as a decisive step. The opt-out clauses that the Government negotiated will limit Britain's opportunities to influence the European Community to our benefit. The Labour party will take Europe seriously. In only six or seven weeks' time, we will join the mainstream of Europe and set about ensuring that Europe is developed in a way that will suit all the British people.
  12.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I have a difficult task to perform because, on the one hand I want to address the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and, on the other hand, I am conscious of the fact that many of my hon. Friends have been present in the Chamber throughout the

  623
  debate and I do not wish to detain the House at great length. As hon. Members will be aware, sometimes one is urged to do that from other quarters.
  I hope that it will meet with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House if I first address the general question of referendums and the constitutional questions that they raise. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was not quite accurate when he said that this debate is entirely about the Maastricht treaty. Of course, that underlies what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is seeking to do. However, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who shares the scepticism and reserve of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, focused his remarks on the problems of referendums and their constitutional issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I became hon. Members at the same time. It is not unfair to say that we have pursued different career paths over the past 10 or 15 years. However, in all honesty, I must say that I am not absolutely confident that, when our grandchildren consider our particular contributions in this place, my contribution will necessarily be more memorable than my hon. Friend's. He has a reputation in the House for being a courageous and passionate libertarian. Even though in my former guise as a quasi-parliamentary policeman he and I had a number of encounters, I gave him nothing but respect in those exchanges. The respect for the passionate way in which he introduced the debate and for the quality of his arguments is shared by Members on both sides of the House.
  I am bound to say that today's debate will not be as lengthy or detailed as the debate that took place on 11 March 1975 on whether to hold a referendum on continued membership of the Community. Today's debate has provided an opportunity for the House to canter round the course a bit, but this debate will not be as lengthy or as detailed as that debate in 1975. As my hon. Friends will recall, the Conservative Opposition in those days did not support the case for a referendum then and the Conservative Government today do not support this Bill.
  In reducing my remarks considerably, I should refer to the constitutional history of our country and I could quote Dicey and others at length. We have heard a great deal about the will and consent of the people and that matter concerns all hon. Members. Our vital connection to our constituents is important. Although hon. Members may not be surprised by what I am about to say, the people referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) may be surprised. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to believe that scrutiny is better and the democratic deficit is closed under proportional representation.
  There are arguments in favour of proportional representation, but that is not one of them. Many of our partners in the Community who have very sophisticated forms of proportional representation have not discussed such issues with the depth and passion that we have discussed them today. Indeed, in some of those countries, they have barely have been discussed at all. It may surprise people in those countries—although it will not surprise hon. Members—to learn that even while I was accompanying my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Maastricht, I had to deal with an urgent constituency case
  624
  on the Monday by telephone. As I have said, it will come as no surprise to any hon. Member that, as we return in aircraft, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary profits from our return to deal with his constituency correspondence.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I may be doing my right hon. Friend a great injustice, but am I right in saying that, in the past, he has been in favour of proportional representation? Do his remarks suggest that he has changed his mind?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I have never supported proportional representation, and I rather resent the supporters of proportional representation describing it as a fairer system. It is not a fairer system; it is a different system. It has the disadvantage of facilitating entry into Parliament by smaller parties. The national hurdle that is provided by the first-past-the-post system is rather good. It is one of the reasons why extremist parties—communists, fascists and others—have always failed to achieve representation in the House. I do not put that as total rebuttal, but I do not think that the arguments are balanced. I have always favoured the first-past-the-post system, not least because of the link which is important to all of us—that umbilical cord that links us to our constituents and, through them, to the sovereignty that we collectively exercise on behalf of our constituents.
  Rather than parading masses of quotations from Burke, Wilkes and others, I shall focus on the referendum that took place in 1975, to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred as a great battle. I call it a great defeat. It was a defeat for the House and for the Government of the day. It is worth remembering that we had that referendum because the Government of the day were split from top to bottom on the issue and were incapable of taking a decision on it. Of course my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is not proposing anything innovative. Every Parliament and every Government may, if the circumstances suit it in the background of general public opinion, call a referendum. It was interesting that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) claimed on behalf of that side of the campaign which he and, indeed, I supported at the time that we had won, four or five of my hon. Friends and four or five Opposition Members immediately rose. I shall analyse that referendum and some of the questions, problems and difficulties that arise from it.
  One matter is how to make sure that the electorate is fully informed when asked to judge, in the simple yes-no, in-out way, a complex nexus of issues. That matter has also been touched upon. Hon. Members may recall that, in 1975, there were three leaflets—a "yes" leaflet, a "no" leaflet, and a Government leaflet. They were distributed by post in the last 10 days of May. A Harris poll asked voters which leaflets they had seen, which they had read from cover to cover, and which they had found of help to them in making their decision. Eighty two per cent. of voters had seen the "yes" leaflet, 73 per cent. had seen the "no" leaflet, and 71 per cent. had seen the Government leaflet. About a quarter of voters had read each leaflet from cover to cover, but only 10 per cent. of voters found that the "yes" leaflet had helped their understanding of the issue, falling to only 8 per cent. for the "no" leaflet, and a measly 6 per cent. for the Government leaflet. That shows an

  625
  understandable reaction. People generally show little concern for the fine print of complex and, frankly, rather dry legislation. They place their trust in their elected representatives, whose job it is to ensure that the small print is not detrimental to the interests of constituents. That is the basis of parliamentary democracy.
  During the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills raised an important matter about the subsidiarity test. My hon. Friends may have seen that I went across the Chamber to discuss the matter with him. It would take too long to give him an adequate reply to that important point. It would probably take about 10 or 15 minutes to address why the placing of the last sentence of article 3b as a separate paragraph rather than an integral part of the second paragraph was a matter which exercised our lawyers and lawyers in the Federal Republic with whom we were working on the matter for a considerable number of months. It is an important issue, but it is a narrow matter in the treaty and if I had addressed it I would have left many of my hon. Friends unanswered. That is one illustration of the complexity—
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: But that is what happens in a general election.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course it is. That is why all general elections contain within them an element of doctor's mandate. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newham, South or another hon. Member referred to the election in 1931. British people are very sophisticated. They know perfectly well when they vote in a general election that there are some firm policies about which they can be clear, but that there is also an element of doctor's mandate.
  Mr. Shepherd: There was a specific example. When Baldwin won the election with a majority in 1931, he said that he must go to the country on tariff reform. He went specifically on that issue and lost. But it was a specific mandate. He responded to the principle in our constitutional practice of the time that one should seek a specific mandate on major constitutional or big issues. I tried to give the examples of the mandates achieved in 1832, 1910 and the early 1930s.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I was referring not to Baldwin's mandate but to Ramsay MacDonald's efforts to achieve a doctor's mandate or doctor's prescription, as it was called. In a sense, the point both reinforces my argument that such matters can be resolved in a general election and makes the point that the issues are complicated and it is difficult to reduce to a simple yes-no answer the complexity of issues not only in the Maastricht treaty but connected with our very membership of the Community.
  Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend that the British electorate are extremely sophisticated and able to make their own judgments. I do not suggest for one moment that one can argue against referendums on the basis that the British people are incapable of understanding the issues and making up their minds. I simply argue that the issues are complex and that the evidence that I gave from 1975 of the way in which the leaflets were read and the opinion of their helpfulness among the public makes one pause to consider.
  626
  We should also consider whether the 1975 referendum managed, as my hon. Friend would seek to do, to isolate the issue of EC membership from other issues in the mind of the electorate. Michael Steed writing in The Economist on 14 June 1975 set out to analyse voting patterns across the country. The yes vote varied from 70 per cent. or more in the south to 30 per cent. in the Western Isles. His conclusion was that within a small margin of error people tended to vote along party lines and broadly reflected the yes-no split within each political party.
  So what was gained from the 1975 referendum? It has been plausibly argued by some that the referendum was detrimental to the country. Parliamentary life ground to a halt. Politicians took to the campaign trail and the Government were distracted from tackling the real issues. The Labour Government of the day were beset by the most appalling problems of economic mismanagement and so forth and were distracted from them, which caused commentators to feel—as the press commented—that the referendum had been a luxury that the Government and the country could ill afford. Interest in the referendum soon waned.
  Mr. John Marshall rose—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I must finish this point and then I shall give way. I expect that my hon. Friends are seeking to take part in the debate. I am trying to reduce my remarks to ensure that other hon. Members may have the opportunity to speak, but I shall certainly give way if I may first develop the argument.
  Interest in the referendum soon waned and it was reduced almost to the status of a sideshow. Even the press showed little enthusiasm. I took the trouble to have that fact investigated. In the four weeks before polling day only 17·5 per cent. of lead stories in national daily newspapers referred to the referendum. Other issues took precedence—a railway strike, a strike at ITV, the sterling crisis, record inflation under a Labour Government and even the Bay City Rollers. On polling day that admirable organ of opinion the Daily Mail chose to lead with the news of new export orders to Saudi Arabia.
  We have had one referendum and it merits analysis. The phrasing of the question caused a lot of trouble in 1975 and it was again apparent today that phrasing the question remains a matter of controversy. Even on such an apparently simple issue as in or out of the Community, could the wording of the question sufficiently affect the answer? Opinion polls were held prior to the referendum to try to find out whether that was so. At the beginning of February 1975, NOP asked a series of differently worded questions and recorded the majority of yes voters over those who would vote no for each question. For example, to the question,
  "Do you accept the Government's recommendation that the United Kingdom should come out of the Common Market?"
  the yes vote had a majority of 0·2 per cent. For the simple question,
  "Should the United Kingdom come out of the Common Market?"
  the figure rose to 4·6 per cent. and for the straight choice "In/Out" the figure was 10·8 per cent. Another set of questions were asked. To the question,
  "Should the United Kingdom stay in the Common Market?"

  627
  the yes vote had a majority of 13·2 per cent.; to the question,
  "Do you accept the Government's recommendations that the United Kingdom should stay in the Common Market?"
  the yes vote had a majority of 18·2 per cent.; to the question,
  "The Government recommends the acceptance of the renegotiated terms of British membership of the Common Market. Should the United Kingdom stay in the Common Market?"
  it was 11·2 per cent., and finally,
  "Her Majesty's Government believe that the nation's best interests would be served by accepting the favourably renegotiated terms of our continued membership of the Common Market. Should the United Kingdom stay in the Common Market?"
  had a 16·2 per cent. majority for the yes option over the no option.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South—I do not think that anyone in the House would accuse him of being a Euro-federalist or a Euro-freak—sought to draw our attention to those inherent problems associated with referendums.
  Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend offers a good intellectual argument in favour of the Government's position. Does he not accept that the constituency that he should be tackling consists of all those millions of electors outside this place who will be asking themselves, "Why are the Government and our national politicians refusing to give us, the people, an opportunity to express our views on what we regard to be the most important constitutional issue of our lifetime?"
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend places me in something of a dilemma. I do not regard myself as, and I do not think that anyone who spends any time working actively in the Community could be, what we would define as a Euro-enthusiast. Nevertheless, I broadly wish to make it work and think that it is in the interests of our country. I am tempted by my hon. Friend's proposition, because I have no doubt that, were a referendum to be held, an overwhelming majority of the British people, in the exercise of their common sense, would vote for the treaty.
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way in a moment.
  My concern is much wider. Looking back on history, I shall refrain from examining the referendum on devolution in Scotland. Confident though I am that the result would reinforce my views, every time we have such a referendum it is, in a sense, an abdication of responsibility by the House and the Government of the day. This Government intend to make no such abdication of their responsibilities; nor do they intend to invite the House to abdicate from its responsibility.
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not give way because others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), want to participate in the debate. I do not wish to refuse to give way, but I want to conclude my remarks so that other hon. Members can take part in the debate.
  The Bill is admirably brief, but I fear that, for this purpose, it may be too brief. It claims that its purpose is simply to
  628
  "Require a national referendum as a precondition of the ratification of certain treaties."
  Those treaties are narrowly defined as those relating to the establishment of the European Communities, which would further
  "diminish the Authority of the Queen in Parliament to regulate the affairs of the United Kingdom".
  As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, every time the United Kingdom enters a treaty, our sovereignty and the rights of this House are diminished to some extent. If the Bill proceeds to its Committee stage, some hon. Members may seek to broaden its scope to include, for example, the important constitutional matters mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the matters to be considered in Committee, if there is to be a full and proper referendum, would be the state of the electoral register on which that referendum would take place. At present, 3 per cent. or more of the electorate is missing from the electoral register. Much has been said about the importance of constituents and how they should be responded to in referendums and parliamentary democracy. Therefore, is not there a need to do something about ensuring that the register is correct? Should not we ensure that it is correct before the next general election?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: In order not to detain the House, I suggest that, should the Bill receive a Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman should ask to go on the Committee arid make his point there.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend seek to take part in the debate later?
  Mr. Marshall: No.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: In that case, I shall conclude my remarks because some hon. Members have been in the House for the whole morning and I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not give way again.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said, let us assume that the criterion is fulfilled and a referendum is called. Would there be a campaign to inform people of the true implications of the treaty? I am sure that my hon. Friends and those who take a different view would try to do that. How would the campaign be organised? How could a question be formulated to isolate the issue of the treaty's ratification from the other issues of the day? Asquith said that a
  "referendum might be nominally and ostensibly on some particular point"
  but that
  "You would have the turmoil, the tumult and a large part of the expense of a general election; and I do not believe it would be possible … under these conditions, completely to segregate the particular issue on which the referendum took place, and entirely to ignore the whole of the rest of the field of politics."
  Careful analysis of the previous referendum shows that despite the reneging on the responsibilities of this House, and despite the suspending of the Government for three or four weeks, the way that people voted in the end appeared to reflect not just the party splits, but the yes-no split within those parties. The referendum proposal is not only unhelpful, but it flies in the face of our responsibilities as Members of Parliament.

  629
  The Maastricht treaty has been the underlying theme of the debate. A number of hon. Members have expressed concern about the diminution of the sovereignty both of this House and of the British people. My belief is that on many of the great issues, the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice. I want those countries to work together more closely on things that we can do better together. Europe is stronger when we do that, whether it be on trade, defence or in our relations with the rest of the world.
  Working more closely together does not necessarily require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by appointed bureaucracies. As the years go by and as the Community develops, we must make a judgment on how the balance between the will of the Government and the House, working with others in Europe, is best served. The words that I used were more or less a paraphrase of those used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in her important speech in Bruges. I agree with every word.
  What we have contrived to do in Europe is to begin, perhaps for the first time in the past 20 or 25 years, to put the brakes on that "inevitable" move, which some of our European partners still wish to happen, towards a single structure, where every area of political endeavour would be contained within the treaty of Rome and would therefore depend on a Commission initiative and probably on a qualified majority vote, and would then be justiciable under the European Court of Justice.
  My hon. Friends are right to say that that is the way that many of our partners want the Community to move, and they have done so for many years. The great success of Maastricht is that at last we have begun to shape a wider European union, which will enable us, on a number of crucial issues that go to the heart of what being a nation means—foreign, defence, interior and justice policies—to begin to win the argument that agreements between 12 nation states, taken freely and through co-operating together, are not, by definition, qualitatively worse than agreements taken inside the treaty.
  Of course, there are many areas such as trade and agriculture where we have agreed that the Commission has competence. We must do as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has done almost throughout his political lifetime, which is to fight to bring about rational improvements in the common agricultural policy.
  The Bill, which was introduced in such a distinguished way by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, is mistaken, not only because it invites the House to abdicate its responsibilities, but because the sort of question that would be put—as was evident in the previous referendum—in all likelihood would reflect the differing views within the House. The treaty that we have, and to which the House will return in the next Parliament when a Bill will be laid before it to amend the European Communities Act, will require the approval of the House as a necessary pre-condition of ratification by the Government. I have no doubt that that Bill will receive careful scrutiny and will be the subject of passionate debate by my hon. Friends.
  I am sure, as I have been since I came into the House, that the House will express the will of the British people in the matter. That will be expressed by freely elected
  630
  Members of the House in the way that British democracy has traditionally settled these matters, whether they be large or small.
  1.10 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: There is a certain irony in the fact that we are debating in an interesting, informative and illuminating way the question of a referendum on the Common Market on a Friday when the Chairman of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House has held a press conference on its report which proposes doing away with 10 Friday sittings. Today's exchange of opinion demonstrates the value of Friday sittings and the importance of being here to exchange ideas. I shall be as brief as I can, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
  There is and has been a continuing, sustained drive towards a western European state: there is no question about that. We have seen an erosion of the ability of an elected United Kingdom Government to make decisions in a number of areas. The Maastricht summit advanced that position still further. I shall come to details in a moment.
  Let me remind the House of the cost of our membership of the Common Market. Over the past 10 years it has cost us £14,000 million. That is our net contribution after all the receipts from the Common Market have been paid back. It is after taking into account all those notices saying, "Europe helps Bradford", or Tadcaster, or Tamworth, or wherever it is. All those grants from the Common Market are simply some of our own money coming back. For the past 10 years, after all those grants have been taken into account, we have paid £14 billion. The payment this year will be of the order of £3 billion. New demands are being made for a massive increase in the United Kingdom contribution, which I hope this Government and the next Labour Government will resist.
  I support the idea of nations working together as a group of equal nation states without one nation being subordinate to another. I fear that we are becoming subordinate because of the minority position that we so often occupy. Decisions, against which we have voted, are taken by the Council of Ministers, but, as they are majority decisions, the Commission implements them and we can do nothing about it.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. Is he aware that, ever since the Single European Act, Britain has been outvoted, I think I am right in saying, on only four occasions, two of which were on the same issue? The Federal Republic, to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, has been outvoted more often than that on a single day.
  Mr. Cryer: I am about to give examples of voting of a relative minor but important character to demonstrate what has been going on.
  The treaty of Rome was bad enough. It limited our freedom of movement, as every treaty does: there is no question about that. No other treaty provides for legislation affecting the United Kingdom. Regulations have direct application and directives are required to be applied through subordinate legislation in this country. No other treaty inhibits and curtails the elected Government of the day as does the treaty of Rome. That was extended by the Single European Act.

  631
  The Single European Act was a bitter disappointment to its Italian author, Altiero Spinelli, who had a driving ambition to see a united states of western Europe. His disappointment was my pleasure because I was keen that his ambition should not be realised. However, it was a step on the way. Maastricht represents another step. If Altiero Spinelli were alive today, I am sure that he would welcome it with open arms.
  There was widespread resentment and disappointment in the European Parliament about the Single European Act because there is a drive towards the federalism of a united states of western Europe. It is a very important issue which should be put to the people. Every time there are Home Office questions there are answers to questions about the integration of 1992, the year that we are in now. It would not be a bad year in which to have a referendum on the whole issue: the question of drugs, terrorism, the movement of illegal armaments and animal diseases. Only this week we received a letter and a brochure from an organisation that is concerned about the possible removal of barriers to the free movement of animals and the increase of rabies.
  In the context of the sunshine vision that the pro-marketeers so often maintain, this may all seem to be relatively trivial, but these matters make up the day-to-day way in which we live and they are important. We ought, therefore, to take them into account and to be prepared to invoke these arguments in the referendum provided for by the Bill. The Bill is imperfect. I intend to turn to its imperfections later.
  All these matters are of great concern to our people. Let me give an illustration of the way in which the Government's ability, within the great scheme of things within the Common Market, is limited. A number of orders are going through the House. The House knows that I am the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Therefore, we look at all the 1,500 to 2,000 statutory instruments that proceed through the House, having been produced by the Government each year. A significant proportion of those statutory instruments are based on EEC directives. Within the great vision that is put forward, what are the two most recent statutory instruments? One is for the harmonisation of lawnmower noise.
  The Minister said that we want to work closely together. Yes, we do, but do we want to be compelled to work together in such a way that we are bound by law to operate all our lawnmowers at the same level of noise and that it would be an offence to exceed that level? That is the character of the Common Market. It is not a great union of nations. It amounts to a pettifogging application of bureaucratic details spelt out by unaccountable, unelected, overpaid and over-cosseted bureaucrats called Commissioners and all their appointed, unaccountable, overpaid staff in the regions.
  If anybody says that the bureaucrats represent only a very small proportion, compared with the number of civil servants who work in the Welsh Office, or the Scottish Office or the Department of the Environment—I have asked questions about that, too—the fact is that thousands of our civil servants in the Department of the Environment and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are working full time on EEC matters, purely and simply. It is not just the Brussels bureaucracy, therefore, that we are
  632
  concerned about; we are concerned about the whole panoply of the extension of the growth in administration, based in Brussels, that is penetrating this country.
  At the beginning of this year, to give another example, most motorists—there are many of them, about 20 million —were faced with a new imposition: a £1,000 fine if the tread on their car tyes was not more than 1·6 mm. Until I January of this year, it had been 1 mm. It is a relatively minor matter, but the Department of Transport told the Common Market that 1 mm was safe enough and that fewer than 1 per cent. of all accidents occurred in wet weather when an extra 0·6 mm might, without any evidence, meet the road-holding characteristics of all cars. The Common Market did not provide any evidence, and the Department said, "There is no evidence of improved safety." The Government voted against the proposal in the Council of Ministers but were outvoted, so on 1 January the Common Market imposed criminal penalties for breaching the 1·6 mm tread depth. No doubt that is treated as a trivial matter, but it imposed additional costs on every motorist, to the pleasure and delectation of tyre manufacturers, of between £50 and £1,000.
  That is how such legislation is creeping into all aspects of our national and daily life. I say that it is not necessary and that we should halt at this point. I am a convinced opponent of the Common Market, which has been a millstone around our neck.
  Some people may say, "We have come so far; let us go no further." How shall we make that decision, because we will not make it in here? The bureaucracy and weight of the administrative machine in Brussels are too strong; it is now part of our administration of government. We must ask the people of the nation, "Do you wish the subordination of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government to Brussels to be halted, or should we allow the drift towards Euro-federalism to continue whereby this place, as we predicted in the 1960s and 1975, will become little more than a county council?" This is the point at which we should do so.
  The Minister said that there are difficulties with a referendum. Of course there are, but we shall conduct a difficult process over the next few weeks—the general election. The newspapers will pay attention not only to the general election but to a wide range of issues, some of which will impinge on the general election, just as in a referendum.
  In a referendum, people would examine the arguments. People must have the right to receive information, some of which will be prejudiced and some objective, although it is difficult for human beings to be objective in any given circumstance. The Bill does not provide for that, so I assume that the author intends it to be done under delegated powers. The amount of expenditure allocated to each side must be the same to avoid the surfeit of propaganda that was churned out in the 1975 poll. The Government claimed that there would be one leaflet for each side, but they did not say that they would issue another leaflet to ensure that it was two to one.
  Mr. Spearing: Three to one.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right.
  Some of us said that limits should be placed on expenditure. We have such limits in general elections so that the fat cats cannot pour money into a campaign that misleads and subverts the argument and creates

  633
  impressions that lead to an unfair result. Everybody in the United States believes that a similar system should be imposed much more tightly, because if someone there can get enough money he can dominate television with commercials. We have rejected that in our country because we think that it is unfair. Ours is a decent, proper system. In council and general elections, we have a limit on expenditure.
  Mr. Dykes: Not on national expenditure.
  Mr. Cryer: We have limits on expenditure.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cryer: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman has only just come in and hon. Members who have been here a lot longer still wish to take part in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is quite right: we have limitations not on national expenditure but on constituency expenditure, which have the same effect. There is no reason why that principle should not be translated to national expenditure for a referendum. That is an important qualification which was raised when the legislation was passed, but it was ignored by the Government of the day. I think that that was deliberate.
  The Bill is justified and it has my support. I do not think that it will get any further, but it is at least a marker which shows that some of us want to ensure that the drift or inertia is stopped. Platitudes pour out about the victory at Maastricht, about protection, about going so far but no further and about signing one section or removing a sentence. I have been in Parliament since 1974 and I have seen that drift occurring.
  How many times have we heard that the common agricultural policy will be reformed? How many times has that been said in this House, and how many times has it proved to be untrue? The CAP still soaks up 70 per cent. of the European Community budget. Why cannot we renationalise our agriculture to make it fairer and better and less wasteful and less destructive of our countryside which is the inheritance of us all? We cannot because we are bound by the treaty, but we hear many platitudes about changes being made.
  The best changes come from outside. We may not necessarily win the argument, but at least let us have the argument and not allow the drift to continue. If people outside say that they are complacent about the drift and accept it, that would not convince me because I should continue the battle to try to persuade them to change their minds—that is the right of us all—but a decision will have been made which is preferable to the drift. The Bill will make that possible, and it has my support.
  1.26 pm
  Mr. Tony Favell: I had better declare an interest at the outset in case anyone is under any illusion. I am the parliamentary adviser to the Referendum First Campaign. I am not paid for that—it is a labour of love for my country.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that the time has come to take stock of our membership of the Community. The Community is like a
  634
  club and when one joins a club one pays a subscription every year. From time to time, one reconsiders and if one decides that the club is no longer the same club one joined, one decides not to pay a further subscription.
  I and many right hon. Friends believe that the Community is changing its character. When I voted to join the European Community, I believed that I was joining a free trade association. I read all three pamphlets handed to me, but I laboured under that illusion. That is why I voted to join.
  The European Community is now dedicated to turning itself into a political and economic union—a closer and closer union—and it is time for not only the House but the people to be allowed to take stock and to decide whether that is what we want. I believe that when the history of the 1992 general election comes to be written, unless all three parties are prepared to commit themselves to allowing the British people to decide whether they wish the power of the House to drift away to Europe, the election will be go down as the phoney election. People may not realise now, but they soon will—unfortunately, probably not until after the general election—that whichever Government are in power, that Government will no longer be in total control, or even part control in some cases, of matters as important as who should be allowed to enter our country.
  The Government will not be in control—to a large extent—or our economy, of whether the interest rate on mortgages goes up or down or whether the overdraft with the bank manager suddenly goes up or down and whether firms are possibly forced into bankruptcy as a result of a decision taken not here by the Bank of England but in Frankfurt. People's economic fortunes will depend not on what the Opposition—if they form a Government—or we do, but on how German reunification progresses and on whether the Bundesbank believes that it is right to increase interest rates in order to combat the greatest recession since 1929 and the 1930s.
  When the electorate realise that they have been robbed of electing a Government who have control over these decisions, their anger will know no bounds, and it should not. The House has made decisions without asking the people and without their realising the implications—some small and some rather bigger. For example, there was the doing away with county councils and moving Yorkshire into Lancashire—I am a Yorkshireman myself. People did not realise until too late that these were great constitutional changes to hundreds of years of our history. They should not have been done without the wholehearted consent of the people—there is a phrase.
  Our country is now a multiracial society—one cannot turn the clock back and nor would I wish to do so. However, people were not asked about the policies that brought about that change, and they should have been asked. The changes brought about by Maastricht will be even bigger. Control over matters as large as that will move from here to elsewhere, and there is no greater decision than that. I agree with what the hon. Member for Bradford, North and others have said.
  Mr. Cryer: Bradford, South.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend look back at the Division lists for 25 January 1978 when the House last voted on whether there should be a referendum, in that case for Scotland and Wales? Does he agree that the words of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) are

  635
  somewhat devalued because at that time he voted against the people of Scotland having a referendum? If the people of Scotland could not understand devolution, why does the hon. Gentleman think that the people of England can understand Europe? Is not the hon. Member for Bradford, South a humbug?
  Mr. Favell: I will not comment on whether the hon. Member for Bradford, South—I apologise for getting the wrong end of Bradford—is a humbug, but he is entitled to change his mind. I voted yes in the referendum on continued membership of the Common Market and I now believe that that was a fundamental mistake. I believe that many other people believe that that was wrong. I am asking that they should be given the opportunity to express through a referendum whether they wish to go any further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) spoke of Scottish devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) mentioned the article in the Financial Times on 12 December 1991, which said:
  "The Maastricht Treaty is indeed the biggest milestone in the Community's 34-year history … in its preamble, many of the attributes—common citizenship, defence and money—of a potential Euro-super state"
  were being put into place. He is right. Some people are beginning to rumble that. They certainly are in Scotland. The Scottish National party is realising that power is moving away from the United Kingdom to Brussels and is talking about "Scotland in Europe". If decisions are riot to be made here in Westminster, where Scotland has quite a large representation, why not take a place at the top table in Brussels? It is difficult to argue against that.
  The British people as a whole must be asked whether they wish the United Kingdom to break up. The SNP will do better than many people believe, and many Labour Members are beginning to realise that. These great matters should be put to the people, not decided here on a three-line Whip. The United Kingdom was put together by our forebears in 1707 and since that time, we have defeated dictators together, fought wars together, won and lost empires together, traded together, intermarried, and had a single currency. Everybody should be asked to decide on whether to change that, and it should not be decided only here. It certainly should not be decided without being put to the electorate at a general election, as it will not be. That is why the general election of 1992 will be regarded as a phoney election.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, there will be more IGCs before 1996—possibly even before the general election. More decisions will be made, and that really will be the cap on it. No doubt the same arguments will be advanced in the House. People will say, "We must not have a referendum. Don't forget the 1992 Maastricht treaty. This House agreed to a treaty of union. Don't you know what a treaty of union is? You knew what the Act of Union in 1707 meant. Surely you know what the treaty of union in 1992 meant."
  In our heart of hearts, whether we are for it or against it, we know what the treaty means. It is the drive towards a united states of Europe. It is the drive towards a federal super-state. In the summer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
  "A European super-state would not be acceptable to me or to the House—and in my judgment it would not be acceptable to the country."—[Official Report, 18 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 142.]
  636
  The country should be asked. The Irish are having a referendum on the treaty of Maastricht. The Danes are having a referendum on the treaty of Maastricht. The British, with the oldest democracy of all, should be given the benefit of a referendum.
  1.35 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who has left the Chamber —temporarily, I assume—referred to one of those irritating Community directives, the lawnmower noise directive, which was being examined by his Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is interesting that he did not reach the conclusion that all good constitutionalists in this Parliament should reach if they are really concerned about this institution's future strength: if a majority vote in the Community left this Parliament seething—across the Benches and across the parties—at the injustice of the decision, Parliament could rise up against the Executive and say, "We will not accept that decision; we will vote against it." It is interesting to observe that, despite all the noise, all the ritual, all the hubris and hyperbole, this Parliament has never objected to a single directive from the European Community once the Executive have revealed their decision on it.
  That is contrary to the impression that we like to give. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) a pride in this institution, and he and I are friends, despite our differences on this fundamental subject. I respect the passion, depth and sincerity with which he spoke, but we know that this is, unfortunately, one of the more docile parliamentary institutions among the member states of the European Community. Much depends on explanations, differences and so on. I should like to see that docility diminish in the future, but it is part of the way in which our traditions have developed. It has a positive side, because most of us probably sometimes relish the fact that a strong Government can introduce instant legislation, sometimes on the most marginal problems, although if we regret that legislation, we can put in a different Bill and possibly even a different Government. That is easier here than in some other countries—particularly the United States—with the separation of powers.
  The European Community, too, has that attractive feature—the separation of powers through the multiplicity of sources of power and decision making. The Commission makes proposals. Those proposals must be voted on by the Council of Ministers unanimously or by a majority vote, or by whatever system may be decided. That is safer than our system under which, if an abuse of power takes place, there is no restraint and there are no checks and balances—until there is an upheaval in the party concerned or a significant change at a general election. In our system, self-restraint is needed because of the absence of a written constitution.
  As the Minister of State and others have said today, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is a respected parliamentarian. I wish that he had dealt with such matters in his Bill. The flaw in the Bill is that it refers specifically to European treaties: it is not a general referendum Bill. Although my hon. Friend would deny it—and I am sure that his motives are pure—others

  637
  have latched on to the Bill opportunistically to bash Europe yet again and to stir up trouble both before and after the general election.
  Mr. Carttiss: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dykes: I would like to, but I want other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, to have a chance to speak, so I shall be brief. I have been in the Chamber throughout the debate and, apart from raising a point of order, I have not intervened.
  It is sad that some Conservative Members and Opposition Members who are worried about these developments are hitting the wrong targets. There should be measures to strengthen our national Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made an excellent speech and I appreciated his masterly analysis of the previous 1975 referendum, its parameters, components, questions, answers and percentages. That was a telling critique which exposed the flaws of that referendum. As we are aware, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was adamant in her opposition to that referendum.
  The targets in the Bill are wrong. My greatest objection to the Bill is the mention of any particular reason for the referendum, as if the treaty concerned is different from any other treaty. It is not, although it is more profound. This country took a major decision to share sovereignty with other individual, proud, sovereign countries; to join agreed, integrated structures with no loss of sovereignty, but an overall growth of sovereignty and, therefore, no risks. The British public increasingly support that and, therefore, there is no need for a Referendum Bill.
  It is ironic and sad that the Bill undermines the sovereignty of this place and, presumably to a lesser extent, of the upper House, which has a residual role in such matters. Although the Bill has only one sponsor, the Bill's supporters will weaken the residual strength of this institution which has already been weakened by our practices, by the complex nature of the political economy in Britain and the need to work more closely with other countries.
  When the United Nations pursued its Gulf initiatives, the other countries in the Security Council and the General Assembly did not impose their will on a hapless Britain. Instead, Britain participated voluntarily and positively. The same thing applies to all our international treaties and agreements.
  The treaty about which we are concerned is more profound than others. It provides for legislation in all the national Parliaments, but it is no more terrifying for that. It flows from the original Stuttgart declaration and the Single European Act when there was no question of a referendum. The supporters of today's Bill did not call for a referendum then. There are flaws in putting immensely complex questions to an already overburdened public who, through delegation and representative parliamentary democracy, want their own Members of Parliament to handle such matters. That is our way and our strength.
  Countries with written constitutions provide for referendums on major constitutional matters. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the Bill to be introduced after the general election by whichever party wins—we hope that it will be the Conservatives—will be
  638
  our legitimate parliamentary equivalent of a referendum. All our citizens will be able to lobby us as hon. Members. There is a close, sacred and precious connection between hon. Members and their constituents, irrespective of party adhesion. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) believes that the public would come to this place and tell us not to support such an outrageous measure, but I doubt that. I believe that there is enthusiasm for such issues not just among the younger generation, but among the older generation as well.
  Never before has such a profound treaty been agreed by our Government on behalf of the British Parliament and the public with the enthusiasm that it deserved. If the press and politicians deprived the public of the opportunity of detailed arguments, that was their fault. Basic common sense overrides all that. People know that our planet is smaller and the European part is becoming smaller—not literally, but in the sense of a need for indivisible, close co-operation between countries.
  Treaty structures are the sanctification of such Government decisions. Support for Europe is growing. People who visit the Commission in Brussels for the first time come away from it as admirers. I can understand that. They may disapprove of some aspects of the CAP—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Steady on.
  Mr. Dykes: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is rightly trying to restrain me. Perhaps I am going a little too far. I meant to say that they are aware of the way in which a modest-sized bureaucracy creates policy by agreement. The process passes to the Council of Ministers which is asked to vote on the issue. If the European Parliament were to be involved in the process, why did not my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills introduce a Bill that would give the European Parliament additional powers by delegating legislation from this House? That would have been much better.
  During world war two, the great coalitions of the parties in a national emergency came together against the fascist tyranny emanating from Germany. In parentheses, I deplore the attacks on Germany that were made, mainly by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in a quite hysterical outburst. With 85 per cent. of the population of Germany being born after 1945, I can think of no country that has handled its reunification with more impeccable dignity and restraint than the Federal Republic of Germany. We thank it for being one of the model democracies of Europe.
  In that emergency in the second world war, there was consensus here. There was no question of a referendum about the major existential decision facing any nation—to go to war or not. There was never a referendum on the NATO treaty—admittedly, that was only on defence and security, but in existential terms as well it was much more far reaching than matters to do with commerce, trade and working together in political economies. There is more and more agreement between the parties, with just a small number of dissidents in each of the major parties. Presumably, the Liberals are mostly pro-Europe, but sometimes there is a little odd exception in the parliamentary Liberal party which bursts through a little chink of light—I was going to say "of sunlight". They sometimes show themselves, but otherwise there is the developing, growing, powerful consensus of the House of

  639
  Commons. There is no need for my hon. Friend or others who like the Bill to be nervous of that. What they should do is oppose the Bill.
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on a brilliant speech. It was unscripted, and 40 minutes of joy to listen to.
  My natural instincts are not to favour a referendum, for some of the reasons that have been given. I fully understand that, to a large extent, the debate about Britain's future place in Europe is about the future place of the House of Commons in Europe. Those of us who wish to resist any further moves to a federal state of Europe do so in large part precisely because we wish to protect the rights and the powers of Parliament.
  The sovereignty of Parliament distinguishes our country—I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on this point —from most others in Europe and provides one reason why the British perspective on Europe is bound to be different. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East said that, in some way, European institutions and the European thread of history are more democratic than ours. That is bizarre. The foundation of the philosophy of Kant and others in 19th century Germany was basically anti-democratic. There is no tradition similar to the British tradition of democracy. One has only to go to the French Assembly or to the Bundestag to realise that those institutions have a totally and profoundly different position in their country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East mentioned the House of Commons being wimpish on questions of Europe, compared with other European institutions. Anybody who attended the French Assembly debate on the Maastricht agreement will have found Four or five members there rather drearily trying to find something to say about it and will have understood that European institutions do not have the thread of democracy that we have. Elected German Ministers send their officials to debate great issues in the Bundestag. There is a profound difference in the way that we treat parliamentary democracy.
  Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. The reality of the three-line Whip system renders his remarks otiose, because we all know that we are going through a ritual and, in a docile fashion, supporting the recommendations of our Executive. That is strength, but it is also the weakness of the Parliament. I was talking about the post-war period in respect of other Parliaments, not ancient history.
  Mr. Spicer: I understand that. I shall refer to the paradox because I intend—it is paradoxical—to speak in favour of the Bill, which has the effect of bypassing Parliament. I shall try to answer the paradox by posing a further dilemma. Perhaps it relates to what my hon. Friend has just said.
  Mr. Favell: The Bill does not bypass Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) suggests that there should be a referendum first. The final decision will be made by Parliament. It need not accept the public's recommendation if it does not wish to.
  Mr. Spicer: That is a good point and one to which I intended to return.
  For good historical reasons connected mainly with our constitution, in which the executive branch of government and the legislature are fused together, we have a rigid party system in the House of Commons. Perhaps that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was making. The next general election will certainly he fought exclusively on party lines. For differing reasons the leaderships of all the parties, perhaps with the exception of the Ulster Unionist party, have decided to form a common front on what to my mind is the crucial point about Europe. In their various ways they have accepted the broad objective of setting up and joining a single European monetary system.
  The Government, unlike the Labour party, thankfully, have not included within the commitment to a single monetary system a further commitment to merge the pound in a single European currency. But all parties are committed to the exchange rate mechanism and to the further tightening of its screws. In precisely the same way as they did with the return to the gold standard in 1925, the leaderships of all parties have been willing to trade off rising unemployment against something called a stable currency.
  Of course, the Labour party's position is the most dishonourable. I was delighted to see that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has been rumbled in his own newspaper. I do not know who said that The Guardian was an unbiased newspaper but certainly it has rumbled the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In an extraordinary and precise repetition, for example, of Philip Snowden's call for a return to the gold standard from the Opposition Front Bench in 1925, the position of the present Labour party is on the one hand to shout abuse at the Government for high interest rates and rising unemployment and on the other to advocate a tightening of the policies that will have the precise effect of making things worse, in particular a single European currency and the shackling of our industry with social costs.
  Part of the debate that has taken place so far has revolved around whether crucial issues about the future of Europe and the link between the currency and political issues can be resolved in a general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) seemed to go to the centre of that when he said that the matter could be resolved in a general election. But in the same breath, or a few breaths later, he said that he did not want such important issues—even he accepted that it was important —to be treated as a specific issue. He wanted them somehow submerged in a wider set of issues. One cannot have it both ways. Either one takes the view that an issue is absolutely crucial or one does not. That is particularly important when dealing with whether we should aim towards monetary union, about which there is a large measure of agreement between the parties.
  .I wish to focus briefly on the single currency and the relationship with the ERM. It is crucial in a discussion about whether there is sufficient difference between the parties to allow an issue to be decided in a general election. The difference between the value of two currencies should be merely a reflection of the difference between respective unit costs in the two countries to which the currencies are attached. A country with higher unit costs than another but which wishes to hold the value of its currency above

  641
  the level that reflects them must of necessity raise its interest rates artificially to attract buyers of its currency and suppress demand, especially for imports. The fact that such a policy may raise unit costs by damaging investment is another aspect of this sorry tale. But the real point is that in any case the result is rising unemployment and industrial stagnation, precisely as happened in the years following 1925.
  Ultimately, the ERM will be seen to be unworkable and we would then have two options—pull out, or accept a single currency. As that would mean a single monetary and fiscal policy and a single central financial authority, it would also mean the formation of the ingredients of a single state, which answers the question about whether there is a distinction between the political and economic concerns involved. They ultimately come together in that crucial question. The Liberal and Labour parties would rapidly accept a single currency. During this debate they have again accepted the concept of a single currency as the way to resolve the present dilemma.
  I hope that the leaders of my party will at least pause to test public opinion on that crucial issue before they take a decision. After giving the matter deep thought, I believe that a referendum on Maastricht would help them in that process. My hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills is absolutely right to say that the Bill merely proposes a test of public opinion on that crucial issue before Parliament takes its final decision, and that is why I support it.
  2 pm
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: I have considerable sympathy with the Bill. Its objectives are clear and based on a worry about the transfer of sovereignty from this country to the European Community. That ought to worry a great many of us. We must find a solution to control it and we have been singularly unsuccessful in doing so in the past. The issues have not been well understood as it has been a gradual process, which is largely outside the ken of most hon. Members, let alone the people outside this place.
  My concern about the Bill and the reason why I do not support it is that I do not believe that a referendum is the right way to control that drift. I shall not go over the arguments about referendums again, because I want to keep my remarks brief so that my hon. Friends can speak. However, a referendum would have two major problems. First, the power of the person calling the referendum to determine the nature of the question will clearly largely determine the outcome. Also, it is a question not merely of the words on the ballot paper but of the nature of the argument preceding the vote which determines how people interpret the question on the referendum. Technically, a referendum is not the right solution to the problem.
  Another difficulty with a referendum is that we are discussing complicated issues. They cannot be segmented into elements on which a decision of yes or no could be taken. The decisions are interrelated and interactive and will lead to future problems and further decisions. That does not lend itself to a simple yes or no answer, or to a simple discussion and debate. However, it lends itself to proper debate in the House and to the proper use of the role of Members of Parliament.
  642
  Edmund Burke has been referred to, but it is clear that the role of Members of Parliament in the House is to listen and to debate the arguments, to understand the issues and to come to a decision which, in their view, is the right decision for the benefit of the country and of their constituents.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Carrington: I shall not give way because I am trying to keep my remarks brief.
  It is important for such complicated issues to be understood by hon. Members. [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Opposition Benches?"] Yes it is important that it should be understood by the empty Opposition Benches.
  The way in which the House functions in controlling legislation is extremely weak and, in many ways, lax. That is also one of the problems with the nature of Members of Parliament. We have set up a number of Select Committees to examine European legislation—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is on one such Committee. In general, Select Committees scratch the top of the problems, but even when they examine the problems in depth and come out with recommendations, if the recommendations do not accord with what the Government of the day want to happen, they are entirely ignored and the ability of the House to impose them is also ignored.
  The right way forward is not a referendum but to consider increasing the power of Members of Parliament and their resourcing. I suspect that one of the reasons why many issues are not examined is because hon. Members do not have the physical resources to give themselves the time to understand the issues. Although every hon. Member in the Chamber today will have understood the issues, I suspect that few of our colleagues have bothered to read the treaties and understand what is behind them.
  The role of Members of Parliament needs to be revised carefully. The role of the support of Government by Members and the separation of the Executive from the legislature must be examined so that Members can be freed to make decisions on those matters without fear of those decisions impacting on their careers or the future of the Government. Essentially, a fundamental change in the role of Members is required. The simplistic solution of holding a referendum is not required.
  Another problem with a referendum is that if, as some of my hon. Friends would no doubt like, it results in the Maastricht treaty being accepted, which is quite likely, we would be in an even worse state than we are today. We would have the endorsement of a treaty for reasons that were not clearly understood and the spurious underpinning of progress in Europe. Again, that would need to be understood, but it would not have been understood through the process of a referendum.
  I am also concerned that the Bill, its supporters having failed to win the argument in the House, is an attempt to take a second bite at the cherry by requiring a referendum outside. A referendum would solve nothing. Whatever the result, it would be unsatisfactory. The right way to protect the interests of the House is to increase the power of ordinary Members of Parliament.
  2.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: I shall reduce my remarks in recognition of the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) who has temporarily left his seat, in recognising the sincerity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) introduced the Bill, suggested that other hon. Members may have attached themselves to the argument less because of the referendum but in order, once again, to "indulge in Euro-bashing". It is quite unacceptable that hon. Members who have a different vision for Europe from many of us constantly assert that, when we dare to criticise what is happening in the European Community or question some of the policies of our Government in that respect, we are somehow engaging in Euro-bashing and that they are better Europeans than those of us who are sceptical about much of what goes on in the European Community.
  No one has to be anti-European to question the developments that have occurred in the European Community in recent years. I, for one, regularly visit Rambouillet, which is twinned with Great Yarmouth. It is one of the original twinning agreements and the mayor of Rambouillet, Senator Gerard Larcher, is vice-president of the Gaullist group, the second largest group in the French senate. The views expressed by people there are not unlike those that I hear expressed by some of my hon. Friends who are concerned about developments in Europe.
  The notion that the people in 11 European countries are content to see their sovereignty reduced and live in a supranational state, and that we are the odd ones out, with a handful of people on the right and a handful on the left who do not agree, is nonsense. They may not have the same opportunity to debate as we have, but the fact remains that there are just as many French people—and Iknow some of them—living in Rambouillet whose views on the subject are the same as mine—that yes, we are part of Europe, and yes, we must remain part of Europe, but that that does not mean, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, that our lawnmowers all have to make the same noise. The Gaullists and many other French people have no more time than we have for Jacques Delors and all that he stands for.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister said that he was confident that, in a referendum, there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of what the Government have been doing. What is the problem, then? Why is it assumed that those who want the referendum are fearful of the result? I do not mind whether those who have sent me and other hon. Members to this place say, "Yes, we want a closer unified union; yes, we want to be more closely involved in Europe; yes, we want our lawnmowers to make the same noise in Great Yarmouth as they make in Maastricht and in Waterloo."
  I remember when the town of Rambouillet was presented with a Council of Europe plaque for all that it had done in the interests of European unity, as distinct from a federal Europe. A senior diplomat—a deputy ambassador—from the Belgian embassy attended the ceremony at Rambouillet because that town is also twinned with Waterloo. That was at a time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who I am glad to have sitting at my side today, was making sterling efforts to protect British interests in the European
  644
  discussions. She was speaking not just for people in this country but for people in Germany, Belgium, France, Holland and all the other countries which no more wanted to be part of a Brussels-dominated surpranational state than I did.
  When my right hon. Friend was leading our country in those intergovernmental conferences, that diplomat from the Belgian embassy in Paris asked me, "Why are you British so concerned about all this? Why are you so worried?" It was an occasion on which we were supposed to be diplomatic, so I brushed aside the question by asking her whether she would like another cup of coffee. However, she repeated the question, and said, "But you British just don't seem to want to go along with us. Why is that?" I continued to try to evade her question, but she kept pressing and I said, "Madam, we have had a Parliament in our country since 1295. My borough of Great Yarmouth has been sending representatives there for 700 years. Your country has not existed as a state for more than 160 years. That is why we are worried. We have a tradition of parliamentary democracy that none of the other European countries can claim."
  I mean no disrespect to those other countries. As soon as I leave the Chamber, I am flying to Holland. I have many friends there and I agree with what has been said about the Dutch. No one is more concerned than I am to ensure that they are not dominated by Germany or any other country. They are a wonderful people, and their country is only 90 miles from my constituency. They built the port in my town 500 years ago. I like the Dutch, but I do not want them telling me, for example, that my lawnmower is too noisy compared with theirs.
  There is much more that I should like to say, but I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak. I do not like referendums. Of course, we are sent to this place to make decisions. Someone said that we did not have a referendum when we went to war. Of course we did not. One cannot have a referendum when one is going to war.
  We did not have a referendum before signing the NATO treaty. Of course not, but that is wholly different. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) tried to draw a parallel between our membership of NATO and this business. We are talking now of changing the whole character of this Parliament. NATO did not do that. We entered a defensive alliance. We trusted our Government to negotiate. There is nothing wrong with that. Here, we are changing the very purpose of this institution. For over 700 years Parliament has existed to control, albeit ineffectively sometimes, the Executive, whether the power of the King or, as more lately, of executive government. I am choosing my words carefully, bearing in mind the power that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley exercised so effectively on our behalf in Europe. Now we are talking about having no control over those decisions.
  There is so much that I want to say, but I shall make one final point as I am aware of the time. A constituent of mine who is in horticulture has glasshouses. He is worried about the proposed directive on carbon dioxide emissions and asked me about it. I said that there was no point discussing it with me because I would not have a vote on it. He said that he would talk to the European man about it. Paul Howell, the Member of the European Parliament for Norfolk, will have no vote on it. The matter will be decided by bureaucrats in Brussels, followed by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers.

  645
  Those are all tiny, insignificant matters beside the great ideal of European unity and peace in our time, but, my God, they affect our constituents—those whom we have been elected to represent. Why are we afraid to say, "This is your country. Sovereignty is too great to be handed away by 650 people sitting in Parliament"? It would not denigrate the sovereignty of this place, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said at the beginning, this place exists only as an expression of the sovereignty of the people. Why be afraid of the people? Let us put our trust in them and have this referendum.
  2.12 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) spoke with great passion and courage. He made me think of my father who sat for that self-same seat some 70 years ago and who would probably have concurred with him. I have to say that I do not. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who opened the debate with a speech of all the nobility of thought and utterance that we have come to expect of him. I disagree with him, but salute him.
  Some 27 years ago I made my first speech in the House on this very subject of Europe. This is almost certainly my last speech here and I have not changed my views in the meantime. The United Kingdom has long-term interests and it is the job of government to protect and advance them. We have a parliamentary system and a party system that enable the Government to do so, often in the teeth of great waves of public opinion urging courses that would be contrary to the country's long-term interests.
  In recent years we have had several referendums, each of which may have been justifiable on its merits, but each referendum eats away at the credibility of our parliamentary institutions. That to my mind is a more insidious and profound threat to those parliamentary institutions than the loss of sovereignty to Brussels which, to a large extent, merely reflects the diminished ability of our nation or any other nation to go it alone in the world today. Government by referendum is government by Gallup poll.
  Conservative Members are under constant pressure from our consitutuents to have a referendum on capital punishment. I am against capital punishment and I am against holding a referendum on it. I cannot pretend, however, that it would be all that disastrous for our national interests if we had regular referendums on capital punishment. We all know what the result would be. Hanging would be brought back. Some capitalist Home Secretary would come under irresistible pressure to execute some murderer, probably a terrorist, and the terrorist would hang. Then we would discover that we had hanged the wrong chap. There would be great revulsion and another referendum, and capital punishment would be abolished the following year. It would not matter all that much if we had capital punishment in even years and did away with it in odd years, but foreign policy cannot be conducted on that basis.
  Thirty years ago a Conservative Government, under Harold Macmillan, decided reluctantly—and it was very reluctantly—that we could not prevent the emergence on our doorstep of a new economic super-power and that we
  646
  had no choice but to join it. Of course there were positive and much nobler reasons for joining, but, for the purposes of my argument, I shall leave them on one side. We made the choice. For 20 years we have been members of the European Community. It has taken all of those 20 years to settle down into membership of the Community. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills ever really has.
  The Labour party has only just grown out of the habit, every time that it is in opposition, of promising to take us out of the European Community, only to turn turtle when they are back in government. Splendid. However, just when we have finished the dangerous game of see-saw, with Britain's membership of the European Community seemingly at risk every time there was the threat of a Labour Government, we find that people on this side of the House, including some who really should know better, are saying that we should submit the country's long-term interests to the unpredictable hazards of a referendum.
  The proposal, as I understand it, is to hold a referendum on the Maastricht treaty terms and to close off the option, for the United Kingdom, of moving to a single currency. Just what will happen if the referendum leads to the answer no? The issue might well be voted on in a week in which French farmers set fire to a lorryload of live sheep, or a British girl gets murdered in Italy, or there is a great neo-Nazi demonstration in Potsdam. Such events, joyfully whooped up, as they would be, by our egregious tabloid press—I can visualise already the headline in the Evening Standard—could have a substantial, possibly even a decisive influence on the results of that referendum, which is bound to be more of a popularity test than a careful balancing of the issues.
  The individual voter in a referendum does not have to find a policy to replace the one that he has rejected. That is our job, our responsibility. We have to live with the consequences of the policy decisions that we vote for and we have to defend them if they turn out to be disastrous. Those who vote for a policy in a referendum can wash their hands of the consequences. There is no way in which they can be held to account. They do not have to say what alternative policies they want. There is no way in which they could, even if they wanted to. If we vote for the Bill, we shall do infinitely more damage to parliamentary democracy then even the most authoritarian president of the European Commission could ever do.
  2.17 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: We have been talking about democracy all morning and there is little time left. I hope that no hon. Member will try to prevent our coming to a decision today by talking out the Bill. I have been in this place for 26 years. There is no one more akin to the lowest species of pond life than someone who makes a speech for no other purpose than deliberately to prevent Members of Parliament from coming to a decision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a splendid speech in which he referred to The Independent. He said that it has not been telling people what has been happening about the European Community. If that newspaper is guilty of that charge, may I appeal to it, if any hon. Member tries to talk out the Bill and prevent a vote being taken, to publish his picture on the front page tomorrow. Whether they be

  647
  Labour, Liberal, Ulstermen or Conservatives, The Independent should let the people know who is stopping Members of Parliament from coming to a decision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is a credit to democracy. We are about to face a general election. If all of us had been successful in the ballot for private Member's Bills, would we not have been tempted to do something nice about old people, or dogs, or helping people across the road—something popular, something positive? However, my hon. Friend has rightly said that even though it will make him unpopular with some, he wants to face up to this basic democratic issue. It is time that we did. Our complaint is not against the Conservative or Labour parties but that people have simply not been told what is happening with the EC.
  An hon. Friend said, "Why not have a Committee?" I am on one of these stupid Committees that consider European legislation. What can we do? If we say, "We think that this is dreadful, is scandalous, will destroy jobs and will cost a fortune", it is not necessarily reported to the House. The Government can table their own motion, but what happens if we table a motion? Nothing.
  I have had complaints from bus owners in my constituency about a recent regulation on the speed of buses. They said that it was silly, would cost a fortune and would not help anyone and asked what I could do about it. I said that it was discussed at the Council of Ministers and that it was passed under majority voting despite Britain not wanting it. The Minister was not present because his bus or train had been held up.
  We have no power. The time has come to tell people what is happening. If they vote for the EC, that is fine, but let them decide. It is wrong to hide it from them. If anyone knows, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know how we hide what is happening from people. You have to sit in the Chair late at night—at midnight or I am or 2 am—when we discuss all the nasty things that are going on in the EC. Nobody hears about them because there is hardly anyone here to comment on them. You also know about the Committees where power is disappearing.
  People must be told. If we simply allow more and more power to pass to the EC without telling people, at some point they will wake up, but what will they do when they wake up? How will they vote? It will not matter at all. If people's democratic powers continue to be removed, there will be a huge explosion from them. That should be the fear of every democrat.
  We cannot say that people are not worried about it. We find that people are worried about the disappearance of their laws. Hon. Members should think about the number of people who have written to them about Sunday trading. We have had to tell them, "We cannot do anything until the European Court tells us what we are allowed to do." People complained to me last week that the European Community is spending more than £1,000 million on growing and dumping high-tar tobacco in the third world. People are suffering and dying in the third world, but we can do absolutely nothing about it.
  We know that expenditure on the CAP is breaking all records, but we can do nothing about it. Despite the wonderful rebates that the previous Prime Minister achieved, Britain still has to pay £2·5 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is so right. If people want this to continue, they can vote for it and if they complain in the future we can say, "You voted for it; it is your responsibility." But if we take away all the
  648
  people's powers, step by step, and if we hide it from them deliberately, as we do by having late-night votes and pretending that things do not happen, at some stage there will be an explosion in our country. People will get very angry if they feel that their powers have been thrown away.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said that we do not want a referendum because people will vote against the CAP and not for more money for farmers. He suggested that, irrespective of the views of people, there are some things that we cannot allow them to do. That is one point of view. I think that my hon. Friend is a Conservative—I am not sure—but that is what he was saying.
  Hon. Members have powers entrusted to them by the people. The Labour or Conservative parties can do what they like with those powers. They can pass the laws that they want. They can govern stupidly, which might happen under the Liberal Democrats, but at some time every five years the people have a chance to say, "We think that you have done well" or "You have made a mess of it." The only thing that we do not have the right to do is to pass that power over. We do not have the right to do that unless the people give us their support. That is the issue that we are discussing today and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, because he has done a service for democracy by making us face the issue. We must say yes or no and if any hon. Member from any party tries to stop us coming to a decision, that will be a shame on democracy and I hope that his photograph will be splashed on the front page of The Independent and every other newspaper in Britain.
  2.24 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: The Bill so ably presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) relates to what I consider to be the biggest issue to have faced the nation in my lifetime, barring only one other.
  In the 1950s and 1960s there was another political issue of fundamental importance to the nation on which there was no public debate. The public were not consulted and, more importantly, the issues, arguments and consequences were, I think deliberately, not presented. Those who spoke out in the House were pilloried for their trouble. The consequences, as the House knows, is that we now live in a multiracial society. Never again must the whole culture of our nation be so fundamentally altered without the people being consulted, because the people have an inalienable rights in these matters. It is the people whose lives will be affected, not in the way that those of Ministers and mandarins are affected but in every detail. It is important that we—the politicians of the nation—put fairly and squarely to the people the issues and arguments and, more to the point, the consequences. I stress in particular the consequences of the treaty of Maastricht, because, as many hon. Members have said, they are irreversible and, unlike domestic policy, they cannot be reversed.
  I said a moment ago that I was most concerned that people should have the consequences of these steps pointed out to them. One has to look no further than the common agricultural policy to see the effect of political and economic union. The CAP is, to all intents and purposes, a microcosm of a political and economic union with its own form of legislation, its own currency in the

  649
  green currencies and even its own monetary system through the monetary compensatory amounts. What are the consequences? They are the enormous, unsustainable high cost of the CAP, record low incomes for farmers and the production of food that people will never eat.
  I represent a large and important rural constituency. My farmers tell me what they think about the CAP and about their future. I relay their concerns to the Minister and on many occasions he might agree, but the reality is that he can do nothing because unless and until he can get the agreement of the other nations in the European Community, we are lumbered with what we have.
  I do not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country ever to be put in the same hapless position as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but that would be the effect of introducing a single currency. With one currency, we would have but one Chancellor and he would not be at No. 11 Downing street.
  The danger to the House is that ultimately there would be such disillusionment with hon. Members and the parties represented in the House that we would see the emergence of that very phenomenon to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, drew our attention—nationalism. An awesome example of where that leads us can be found in the events in the USSR and eastern Europe.
  2.29 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I profoundly disagree with this silly Bill, and I think that we would be doing a disservice to the House and to the country if it were allowed to get into Committee. It is for that reason that I am talking now. What we have to discuss is whether we approve of the mechanism of the referendum. I do not—
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley(seated and covered): On point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I think that I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I understand that the Division Bells have been ringing within the Palace of Westminster, but that there is some doubt whether they have been ringing throughout. In view of that, I propose to add two minutes to the time allowed before the doors are locked.
  Mr. Cash (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy peaker. If hon. Members could not hear the Division Bells because they were not ringing, they can do nothing about that, whether or not they have an extra two minutes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is reasonably clear to me that the Division Bells have been ringing in most of the Palace
  650
  of Westminster, but I have added two minutes to ensure that every hon. Member who desires to vote will have an opportunity to do that.
  Mr. John Marshall (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members expect a Division to take place at 2.30 pm. If they do not hear the Division Bells ring at 2.30 they will not sit around for another 12 minutes on the offchance that they might ring.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We will not have a debate on the matter. I have given my ruling.
  The House having divided: Ayes 46, Noes 3.

  Division No. 90]

  [2.29 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Michael, Alun

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Beggs, Roy

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Robertson, George

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cash, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cohen, Harry

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Cox, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cran, James

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Crowther, Stan

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Cryer, Bob

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Favell, Tony

  Trimble, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hunter, Andrew

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Leighton, Ron

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lord, Michael

  Mr. Humfrey Malins and

  McCrea, Rev William

  Mr. Toby Jessel.

  NOES

  Bottomley, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Irvine, Michael

  Sir Anthony Meyer and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure or for proposal of question).
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 28 February.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have a statement, perhaps on Monday, from Foreign Office Ministers assuring us that they did not switch off the Division Bells in the outer Buildings of the House?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I can forthwith give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

  Private Members' Bills

    SHOPS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before I give the date for the Second Reading, I draw your attention to the fact that on this occasion, the Government were asked clearly to define their position. Today we debated a Bill about a referendum, and we talked about votes in this House and in other places. The vote giving permission for me to introduce the Shops (Amendment) Bill was 222 to four.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to understand the point of order for the Chair. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to it.
    Mr. Powell: I am coming to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a part of the usual channels, and we use the usual channels for debates on Fridays, as you know. You will take cognisance of the fact that, last Friday, through the agreement of the usual channels, two Bills were passed at this time of day. The Second and Third Readings were passed by agreement through the usual channels. Being a part of the usual channels, I took advice and wrote to the Minister with responsibility for the Bill. It is a reforming Bill—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant. The hon. Gentleman really must come to his point of order for me. I think that I have the drift of it, but he must come to it quickly.
    Mr. Powell: You are most tolerant in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for that. It is very difficult to explain all the complex problems, particularly when it comes to private Members' Bills.
    Only yesterday, the Minister of State, Home Office, replied to me in a letter regarding my request for Government co-operation to ensure that the Shops (Amendment) Bill went further than Second Reading. In the third paragraph of her letter, she said that any Bill, unless it had the approval of the Government, would not proceed further. We have ten-minute Bills, private Members' Bills and a ballot for private Members' Bills. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was fortunate enough to win a place in the ballot to enable him to introduce his Bill. I stayed up all night to get a spot for my ten-minute Bill. The motion was passed in the House, as I have mentioned—
    Mr. John Marshall: What is the point of order?
    Mr. Powell: My point of order is that if it means that we must have Government approval before a Bill may be read a Second time, why do we go to all the trouble of trying to obtain a spot, either in private Members' time or to introduce a ten-minute Bill?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced and respected Member of the House, and he knows the procedure very well. It does not operate only at 2.30 pm on Fridays; it operates at other times, too. If an
    652
    hon. Member shouts, "Object," the Bill can go no further on that occasion. That is exactly what happened this afternoon. Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Powell: Next Friday.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 February.

    CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [31 January].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Debate to be resumed what day?
    Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I did not hear any objection.
    Mr. Cohen: There was no objection.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I clearly heard an objection, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he wishes to name a day to resume the debate.
    Mr. Morris: Friday next.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 28 February.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not time that the Select Committee on Procedure again looked urgently at what is now a seriously anomalous position? Whereas the television viewer can see who objected—I am now informed that it was the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), acting for the Government—the reader of Hansard cannot be told who objected. It must be a serious anomaly that one can see on television who destroyed an opportunity to give a Bill a Second Reading but cannot read it in Hansard. Surely that is especially unfortunate in the case of a Bill now being discussed in the House of Lords, which was talked out on 31 January by a Member who has since apologised for his conduct.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It has never been the practice for the hon. Member who objects to further proceedings on a Bill to identify himself. The matter has been referred to the Procedure Committee in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to refer it again, I am sure that he will do so. We must now proceed.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will first take the remaining Orders of the Day.

    CRIMINAL INSTRUCTION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    COLD WEATHER CREDITS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 February.

    RIGHT TO INFORMATION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 February.

    TIMESHARE CONTRACTS (TIME FOR RECONSIDERATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: With permission, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 February.

    HOUSING (FITNESS STANDARD) (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: With permission, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 February.

    ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION (COSMETICS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: With permission, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 February.

    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPPLY OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: With permission, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 February.

    FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for consideration read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There have now been five Bills in succession on which we have not heard anyone object. We cannot hear any objection. A guilty whisper—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We will deal with the Firearms (Amendment) Bill again to make certain that there is no confusion.
    Mr. Ray Powell: On that matter—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman objecting?
    Mr. Powell: No.
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    TIMESHARE BILL
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    PRISONS (REHABILITATION OF DRUG ADDICTS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
    Ordered,
    That European Community Documents Nos. 8810/91, relating to the right of asylum, and 8811/91, relating to immigration, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 2nd March, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Asylum and Immigration not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Points of Order
  2.53 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, concerning the vote on the closure motion on the Referendum Bill. Would it be possible for you to inquire where in the precincts of the House the bells did not ring and to report to the House on Monday or at your convenience?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I made inquiries and it seemed clear to me that the bells were operating in most places. As there might have been some slight doubt, I added two minutes to the Division.
  Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker concerning the Shops (Amendment) Bill, which deals with Sunday trading and was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). There has been reluctance on the part of the Government to make proposals to deal with Sunday trading and there has been an extraordinarily helpful and detailed White Paper—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the Bill now. If there is a point of order I shall take it.
  Mr. Michael: Yes, indeed. My point of order is this. As we have seen the White Paper, as the Bill is in detail before us—in greater detail than many Bills introduced by the Government—as there was a vote of 224 to 4 for the Bill to be debated, and as I presented a plea to the House from my council of churches and all the bishops in Wales—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to debate the Bill.
  Mr. Michael: No. The point of order is that, given all that background, is it not an outrage that we are not allowed to debate the Bill? Will you use your good offices to persuade the Government to make a statement early next week to explain how they will respond to the fact that one solitary voice—which has now disappeared—called against the Bill? That would give the House the opportunity to debate the issues properly and constructively, so that legislation could be clear to the general public and to business. Will you use your good offices to that effect?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have many duties, but one of them is not to persuade the Government to make statements. However, I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that you heard an objection to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, but others did not. May we have some clarification of whether the Government, who have presided over antidiscrimination legislation on employment in Northern Ireland and on race and religion throughout the United Kingdom, object to civil rights for disabled people? I speak for the people of Northern Ireland, who are concerned about the issue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the matter now.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was talked out by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). Today, when the motion to resume the debate was moved, you were close to the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), and you heard him object—or perhaps the Clerk did. One thing is certain: Opposition Members did not hear the guilty whisper. Under Standing Orders, if hon. Members object, they have to object not merely to you, but to the House. The Government Whip also whispered "Object" to the Cold Weather Credits Bill, to the Housing (Fitness Standard) (Amendment) Bill and to the Animal Experimentation (Cosmetics) Bill. We would prefer him to stand up and be man enough to tell the world what the Government are up to.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have a duty to ensure in future that if hon. Members object from a sedentary position they speak out so that everyone knows who the guilty people on the Government Front Bench are who are stopping the passage of important Bills on behalf of people such as the disabled. It really is a scandal.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is my job to carry out the procedures of the House as they are at present. We have been round this course many times at 2.30 pm on a Friday, and if hon. Members wish the procedure to be changed I suggest that they put their point to the Select Committee on Procedure.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is absolutely outrageous that the Government Whip should object in a whisper to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. You may have heard him, but I suspect that the majority of hon. Members in the House did not hear him. How are Members to follow proceedings if we do not know what is going on? There could be chaos. We might all be speaking together and it would become a tower of Babel. It is disgraceful that the Government Whip should object to such an important Bill in a whisper. It should be made known clearly. The Whips should be made to stand up and object, if that is what they propose to do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my job to ensure that the current procedures of the House are carried out. If hon. Members are dissatisfied, they are free to put their points to the Select Committee on Procedure.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that important point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Other than when there is a Division or when a point of order is raised during a Division, you would insist that all legitimate interventions must be made by an hon. Member on his feet. Sedentary interventions are not accepted by the Chair. Therefore, will you consider the fact that sedentary objections are not a legitimate or acceptable part of the business of the House? Whoever objects should stand on his feet to register the objection.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The short answer is that that is not the case with objections and never has been.
  Mr. David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can confirm what so many other hon. Members have said—that when the third motion was put, we could not hear the word "Object" being said. I did hear a noise but I do not know what it

  657
  was. Being so much closer to the possible source of the noise, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may have heard the word "Object", but there was so much background noise that there is a serious danger that you or the Clerks might hear another noise, such as someone clearing his throat or two hon. Members whispering to one another, and think that the word has been uttered. If the word "Object" is not said clearly, there is a serious danger that you or the Clerks may be misled.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am giving away no secrets when I tell the House that the Chair has powerful amplifiers that enable me to hear very distinctly everything that is said.

  Singleton Hospital, Swansea
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  3.2 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I am sorry that I have had to ask the Minister of State to come here for this debate today. We last personally debated the subject together about seven years ago and we are now here to debate the proposal by West Glamorgan health authority to withdraw funding for the night casualty service at Singleton hospital.
  It is a sad example of the determination of a quango to ignore the wishes of the people it is supposed to serve. As early as a decade ago, with no consultation, the predecessor of that quango closed the casualty unit completely. I campaigned to get it opened and, with the support of the then Secretary of State, it was reopened. But, even then, the authority defied the Secretary of State and refused to open at night. I then had to campaign again and, with the help of the then Secretary of State, we forced it to operate a night service.
  Ever since the unit was reopened, that health authority has been determined to undermine it. From the moment it reopened it said that it would not allow casualty cases the use of the X-ray facilities or the X-ray staff in Singleton hospital, although those are under-utilised at present.
  More importantly, the health authority has issued a ruling that is intended to kill the casualty unit—not just the night unit but the day unit. It has said that ambulances are not allowed to take patients, at any time of day or night, to Singleton unless it is a life-threatening case.
  The authority has been manoeuvring for three years to get to this stage and it is within a week of the final consideration of its proposal to close the night unit. It is an example of the fanaticism and malevolence of certain individuals in that authority that the chief executive said, in a recent interview:
  "No matter how much money the Government gives us, Singleton's casualty service will be a low priority."
  Despite 30,000 signatures on a petition presented by the people of West Glamorgan to keep the unit open, that is the attitude of an unelected, unanswerable, self-opinionated bunch of Welsh Office placemen.
  I wish to expose the cynical deception that underlies the case. The health authority's case is that it has to save £74,000, and that that is the only way to do so. Two of the people whom the authority has recently appointed to implement the Government's health reforms have salaries totalling £69,000. As those health reforms will lapse after the election, that money will be available immediately. However, that might be deemed to be a political point. Even the £74,000 figure is fraudulent because the unit general manager, David Williams, said that he is willing to provide the unit for £50,000, but the health authority has ignored the offer. In fact, Singleton makes £60,000 in income from its casualty unit.
  The saving that the authority wants to make could be more than achieved if only it would lift its ludicrous ruling on the use of ambulances. I have figures from the authority showing that it costs £17 for an ambulance to take somebody from the Singleton area the 9·5 miles to Morriston, with the ambulance then returning to its depot. If we take it that the true saving that it needs to make is £50,000, it need only cut the number of return journeys by

  659
  ambulance four times a day—that is, one journey every six hours. If it wanted to save that money, it would scrap the rule on ambulances.
  I know that I have the Minister's support on that because he was kind enough to say so. On 14 November 1985, he agreed with the view of everyone in west Swansea, including the staff of Singleton hospital, that if Singleton is the nearest casualty unit, casualties should be taken there first. He said that
  "any patient who cannot be treated properly at a minor casualty unit could, if necessary, be transported urgently by ambulance to Morriston."—[Official Report, 14 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 785.]
  He accepted that the logic was to take those patients to the nearest hospital first and, if the cases were severe, then take them to Morriston. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will underline that statement even more firmly today because, since he made it, two major units—the children's unit and the maternity unit—have moved from Morriston to Singleton, so the case is even stronger.
  The deception is beyond all that. The authority tried to delude people with the idea that there would be massive provision of additional cataract operations when the casualty unit closed. When I met the chief executive, he spoke of hundreds. The Minister knows my habit of looking at figures and taking them apart. I did that with the figures from the health authority and found that the hundreds became 70 and, if the true amount needed to be saved were £50,000, the hundreds become fewer than 50.
  So embarrassed is the authority and its chief executive by the exposure of that cruel con trick, that it has now started adding hip operations. It is nonsense. The Minister knows Swansea. Recently. a ship sank off Mumbles head. The ambulances drove straight past the entrance to Singleton hospital and went on for another 9·5 miles to Morriston, although every one of those patients could have been dealt with at Singleton. A fortnight ago, a school bus crashed into a nurses' home at the rear of Singleton hospital, yet 38 children were taken not to Singleton but the 9·5 miles to Morriston. They could have had immediate treatment at Singleton.
  Under the ruling, eye cases, spontaneous abortions, accidents to children and so on, if they are dealt with by ambulance, have to go to Morriston then be brought back to Singleton at a return cost of £34 each trip. The Minister knows how difficult it can be for people. He said that he appreciated that there would be difficulties for patients who had not been severely injured to get to Morriston under their own steam. Bus services have now been severely curtailed.
  I have support for my campaign from all the local councils and local Members—my hon. Friends the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Neath (Mr. Hain), Swansea city council, Clwyd Valley council, Neath borough council, Port Talbot borough council and West Glamorgan county council. The health authority ignored a petition of more than 30,000 on the ground that the signatures had been collected before it had spelt out its option on cataract operations.
  Support for the health authority consists of 16 organisations, an bunch of eight slave committees and employees, plus Powys and Dyfed county councils. Heaven knows what they are doing in this consultation. Incidentally, the health authority is so desperate that it has even asked Gwynedd county council if it thought that the
  660
  Swansea casualty unit should be closed at night. That is the degree of desperation. It can get no significant support for its campaign.
  Public opinion is overwhelming. I again thank the Minister for his support when we last debated the matter and, on the basis on a petition of 7,000, he said:
  "I can assure … the people of Swansea that should the matter come before my right hon. Friend again he will require a great deal of convincing that the service should not be provided in accordance with the wishes that so many of the population have voiced."—[Official Report, 14 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 782.]
  In the past 12 months I have presented a petition of 30,000 signatures and next week I will present a new petition collected since the option was spelt out, which will consist of more than 40,000 signatures—one third of the electorate of the Gower and Swansea, West constituencies combined.
  Evening Post opinion polls showed, before the options were spelt out, 4:1 in favour of keeping the night unit open, and on 29 January, since the options were spelt out, more than 26:1 in favour of keeping the night unit open.Where is the citizens charter? Or is there a special clause in it excluding West Glamorgan? The West Glamorgan health authority dedicated a whole edition of its in-house magazine to telling its employees about the requirements of the citizens charter. Unfortunately, it itself seemed to neglect to read that particular edition.
  The people of west Swansea and Gower are disgusted at the health authority's suggestion that from 1 April 1993 the unit, if it is to continue, should be financed by "novel" means. What an attitude to a casualty unit for a city of that size. I urge the Secretary of State, as I did in a letter, for pity's sake, sack this wretched health authority before it does more harm to the people of west Swansea and Gower. Next week I shall present the petition to the Secretary of State and at the end of the week the consultation period will be over. The Welsh Office has already spent two years considering the case for closure. There is no reason for further consideration. It knows the arguments. All it needs to do now is count the heads.
  After the petition has been presented we expect the Secretary of State to give us a decision before the general election—no messing about, no fudging. We want to know where the Welsh Office stands. The people of Gower and west Swansea will well understand if, after two years of consideration, the Secretary of State cannot announce his decision before the general election: it will be because he is afraid to tell them what he intends to do with the casualty unit.
  3.13 pm
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Although I fully realise the importance of these proposals to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and his constituents, I must make it clear that as the one-month period for representations to be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has begun, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to make any substantial comments on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.
  I can assure all those who have submitted comments on the health authority's proposals for the minor casualty unit at Singleton that their views will be fully considered before my right hon. Friend reaches his decision on this matter. I would also urge all those who wish to comment

  661
  on the proposal, but have not yet done so, to submit their views to my Department before the one-month period for objections ends on 28 February.
  It would be helpful, I am sure, if I briefly set out the type of service that the minor casualty unit provides, as I believe that there has been some misunderstanding about this. The minor casualty unit at Singleton hospital is very much a minor casualty unit offering a service that, in many ways, is comparable with that found in good GP surgeries or health centres. The unit does not have the back-up services that would normally be expected at a major accident and emergency department, such as Morriston hospital, where all such services are available.
  The provision of a minor casualty unit at Singleton and the services to be provided by such a unit has, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West emphasised, been the subject of considerable local debate in recent years. He and I debated the matter in November 1985. To assess the unit's possible future role and contribution, my Department reviewed it in May 1990. The review acknowledged that the unit was providing an important and useful daytime service to the public.
  Owing to the very limited use made of the night-time service—I shall touch on this matter again later—the review questioned the need for such a service, while recognising that the decision on whether to maintain the service was one for the local health authority. The review was carried out purely to inform debate on the future of the service. At that time, neither the health authority nor my right hon. Friend had made any decisions on the issue. I can assure the right hon. Member and those who are concerned about the proposal that my right hon. Friend has an open mind about the future of the unit. Indeed, as I said earlier, he will consider in full all representations made to him on this matter before making any decision on the authority's proposals.
  I believe that it is important not to lose sight of what the health authority is proposing for the unit. Under its proposals the unit would continue to provide a basic service between 8 am and 11 pm at night—that is, it would continue to provide a service to local people for 15 hours a day. Neither the existing day service nor emergency admission arrangements at the hospital would be affected by the proposals, so the proposal is limited to the service provided after 11 pm and before 8 am.
  The authority's view is that the withdrawal of the night-time minor casualty service at Singleton would not have an adverse impact on the population of the area. The authority has pointed out that on average only four people attend the unit between the hours of 11 pm and 8 am, and that the full accident and emergency services available at either Morriston or Neath hospitals would provide a more than satisfactory alternative service.
  Mr. Alan Williams: How does the Minister reconcile that with what he said in 1985? He said:
  "I appreciate that there could be difficulties for patients who are not severely injured in reaching Morriston under their own steam."—[Official Report 14 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 786.]
  The Minister applied that to the whole 24-hour period. It is even more relevant after 8 pm.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: What I said in 1985 is, I am sure, still relevant to the position today, although of course one has
  662
  to take into account whatever changes may have taken place. However, I explained to the right hon. Gentleman that I could make no substantial comment during this debate while the consultation period is still open. I do not think that he will interpret my reply to his intervention as being other than a contribution to the material that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider.
  The authority believes that the funds used to purchase the night service could be put to better use. It has proposed that the savings should be used to improve the health status of the elderly population in West Glamorgan by dealing with the increasing number of elderly people waiting for cataract operations.
  Although the procedures for cataract operations are not too complex, the impact that those operations can have on the quality of life of those who require such treatment should not be underestimated. I understand that the authority has forecast that the funds freed by these proposals would enable it to perform more than 70 additional cataract operations a year.
  Whether the authority is right and the changes proposed in the provision of health care will lead to an acceptable service is a matter which my right hon. Friend will consider when reaching a decision on the proposals. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his points will be carefully considered before any decision is taken.
  It may help if I put this minor casualty unit in proper perspective and say something in defence of West Glamorgan health authority. Since 1979, the authority has increased its front-line staff—its doctors and nurses—by nearly 36 per cent., a rise of more than one third. That has enabled it to boost in-patient and day case activity by 60 per cent. over the period, with a dramatic 273 per cent. rise for day cases alone.
  In 1991–92, the authority is forecasting an increase of nearly 2 per cent. in in-patient and day case admissions, with a rise of more than 15 per cent. in day case treatment alone. That significant increase in activity has allowed it to forecast that, by the end of March, no one in the county should have to wait more than one month for urgent treatment or more than two years for non-urgent care. Looking ahead to 1992–93, the authority's provisional health plan signals a 7·5 per cent. increase in new out-patient attendances and a 6 per cent. rise in in-patient and day case admissions—a rise of more than 4,700 cases compared with the projected outturn for the present year. That is a splendid record by any yardstick and the health authority should be congratulated on it.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Before the Minister concludes his apologia on behalf of the health authority, does he agree that it is absurd that it is costing £74,000 to keep the unit underused, whereas the authority would save more money, and therefore be able to do more cataract operations, if it changed the ambulance rule in line with the Minister's suggestion in the 1985 debate?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: As I told the right hon. Gentleman, each point will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, including the point that he has just made.
  For those who are not familiar with it, it may help if I outline the details of the procedures that must be followed before a substantial change in the use of health buildings can be made.

  663
  Responsibility for the detailed planning of health services and for local consultation on the plans rests, in the first instance, with district health authorities. In developing their plans, authorities are required to have in mind the need to make the most efficient use of their available resources, bearing in mind the changing needs of patients. Ultimate ownership of all health authority buildings is normally vested in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Any proposals for permanent closure or change of use can and do have a significant impact on the local community. Special arrangements have, therefore, been designed to ensure that the public and all local interests are fully consulted. In addition, when there is any objection to the way in which services are to be developed, the procedure is that my right hon. Friend is required to decide on the proposals in full knowledge of any objections.
  Guidance is given to health authorities in health service planning paper No. 5 entitled "Procedure for Consultation on the Closure and Change for Use of Health Buildings". That has been replaced by the guidance issued last summer, although the proposals for the Singleton minor casualty service were subject to consultation before the new guidance was issued.
  The procedure being followed in this case can be summarised as follows: the health authority should first prepare a consultation document spelling out the reasons why changes are necesary, the implications for patients, such as travelling and transport; the options that have been considered and the arguments put forward in favour of them. The relationship between the closure or change of use and other developments in the district's plans should also be drawn out.
  A three-month period of consultation is the next stage, with comments invited from community health councils, local authorities, joint staff consultative committees and other local interests. The health authority should then reconsider the proposed closure or change of use in the light of the comments received. Should the proposal meet with local agreement, and be in accordance with guidelines from the Welsh Office, the health authority may proceed with the closure or change of use without further ado.
  If the result is either resolute opposition or a locally agreed conclusion that differs substantially from the original proposals, the authority is required to refer the matter with its recommendations and an outline of the alternative arrangements to my right hon. Friend.
  So that members of the public who oppose the proposals may have an oppportunity to make their views known before a final decision is taken by the Secretary of State, a further period of one month is allowed and publicly announced. That is the position that we have reached.
  664
  West Glamorgan health authority has implemented this guidance as follows: comments on the proposals were invited in June 1991, with the closing date for comments being 9 September 1991. The authority's proposals on the future of the night-time minor casualty service at Singleton, together with copies of all representations received, were submitted to my right hon. Friend under cover of a letter dated 7 February 1992.
  In presenting its proposals, the authority recognised that there was some local support for a continued 24-hour minor casualty service. As a result, the authority decided to continue to fund the service until 1 April 1993 while, at the same time, asking the local community to identify ways of maintaining the night-time service after that date. We are now receiving representations made in responce to the one-month period announced in the public notice on 31 January 1992. All these representations will be fully considered before the final decision is made.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Minister of State avoid giving the slightly erroneous impression that the first that the Secretary of State heard of this was in February? Will he confirm that the details contained in that submission in February under a covering letter are exactly the same as those of which the Welsh Office has been aware for many months and which have been under discussion and exploration by his officials for many months? All he needs to know now is the magnitude and scale of the opposition to the proposals before making his decision.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: As I said at the beginning, and as the right hon. Gentleman said, we are both aware that this problem has been around for some years. We are dealing with a different aspect from that with which we dealt in November 1985, but, essentially, the problems revolve around the casualty unit at Singleton. I also said that we tried to ensure that anyone who had not made representations and who wished to do so now had an opportunity to do so in the final month before my right hon. Friend comes to a decision.
  Once my right hon. Friend has reached a conclusion on the health authority's proposals, a letter giving his decision and the reasons for it will be sent to the health authority. Copies of the letter will be sent to other people or bodies who have expressed an interest in the matter, including the right hon. Gentleman, and the decisions will be publicised by means of a press release. Once again, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and all those who have made representations to my right hon. Friend that he will give this matter the fullest possible consideration before he comes to his decision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Grendon Prison
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are awaiting admission to Grendon prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of 245 prisoners were on the waiting list for transfer to Grendon prison on 14 February 1992.

  Filipino Wives
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Filipino wives of British husbands have been refused entry to the United Kingdom since August 1988; and how many have been admitted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is available only in respect of such wives applying in the Philippines for entry clearance for settlement in the years 1990 and 1991. This is given in the table.

  Annual figures on admissions of wives or fiancees of Filipino nationality are published in table 1 of Cm 1571, "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom 1990", a copy of which is in the Library. These admission figures include Filipino wives and fiancees granted entry clearance other than in the Philippines and any joining non-British husbands settled in the United Kingdom. They do not take account of the year in which the entry clearance was granted.

  Estimated number of Filipino wives of British husbands applying for a settlement entry clearance in Manila

  Entry clearance applications

  Year

  Granted1

  Refused initially2

  1990

  200

  110

  1991

  200

  140

  1 Including granted on appeal.

  2 Some may be subsequently granted on appeal.

  Unlawful Killings, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unlawful killings took place in Lambeth in 1991.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that there were 19 unlawful killings in the borough of Lambeth in 1991.

  "Getaway"
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the representations made to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill concerning the publication and 294
  sale of manuals on sale at Soldier of Fortune shops in Liverpool; what steps he is taking to ban their publication; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend on 18 February about the sale of a book entitled "Getaway" which is alleged to contain information on illegal and dangerous ways of driving.

  Ministers do not have the power to ban or censor books or other publications. However, it is an offence to publish a work which is obscene, which incites its readers to crime, or which is otherwise a breach of the criminal law. It is for the police to investigate any allegation of an offence and for the courts to decide whether an offence has been committed in any particular case; Ministers cannot intervene in either of these processes. I understand that in this particular case the owners of the shops concerned have decided to withdraw the book from sale.

  Project Comtram
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to sustain Project Comtram and the community lawyer scheme, funded under section 11, in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Decisions on the eligibility of projects for funding under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 have been made in accordance with policy and administrative criteria laid down under new arrangements for the administration of the grant which were announced in October 1990, when local authorities were invited to bid afresh for funding from 1 April 1992. Applicants were required to demonstrate that proposals were within the policy criteria and fulfilled key requirements of a procedure designed to ensure that the available funding is targeted to achieve maximum benefit for members of ethnic minorities. Applications for the projects in question failed in key respects and were not approved.

  Criminal Justice Act 1991
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring the remaining provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 into force.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have today made a commencement order which will bring into force from 1 October 1992 most of the remaining provisions of the Act, including the bulk of the new sentencing framework. The order will also bring into force from 1 April 1992 the provisions relating to the inner London probation area (section 75) and court security officers (sections 76 to 79). A consultation paper setting out detailed proposals for implementing the provisions on curfew orders and electronic monitoring (sections 12 to 13) will be issued shortly, and these provisions will be brought into force as soon as possible after consultation. The provision in section 60 which will replace remand to custody for 15 to 16-year-old boys by remand to local authority secure accommodation will be implemented when sufficient local authority secure accommodation is available.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what response they have received to their letters as shareholders to public companies allegedly in breach of the Shops Act 1950; and what further action they intend to take.

  Mr. Alison
  Those companies to which the commissioners wrote whose stores had opened on Sundays took the line that the law was unsatisfactory and in need of reform, that they had not particularly wanted to open on Sundays but felt under pressure to do so from competitors. The commissioners will continue to monitor the situation.

EMPLOYMENT

  Pay Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the information on full-time workers' pay for the west midlands and, if available, cities and counties within the region, and for comparison England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as given for Scottish regions in his answer to the hon. Member for Angus, East, (Mr. Welsh) on 6 February Official Report, columns 266–69.

  Mr. Forth
  The information available from the "New Earnings Survey", closest to that requested, is given in the tables.

  Full time employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: Percentage with weekly earnings (including overtime) below the following specified amounts

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Manual women

  West Midlands region

  37·6

  46·3

  77·8

  82·6

  West Midlands MC

  37·3

  44·3

  76·4

  83·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  35·6

  52·9

  77·9

  81·7

  Shropshire

  39·4

  50·0

  84·8

  87·9

  Staffordshire

  39·4

  46·8

  76·9

  79·6

  Warwickshire

  36·1

  44·4

  83·3

  86·1

  England

  34·0

  42·7

  71·7

  76·5

  Scotland

  39·2

  48·1

  75·9

  80·7

  Wales

  36·6

  48·9

  76·8

  80·6

  Northern Ireland

  51·1

  61·1

  84·4

  87·0

  Non-manual women

  West Midlands region

  12·4

  18·0

  44·7

  50·5

  West Midlands MC

  10·6

  15·2

  40·4

  46·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  12·7

  21·1

  49·5

  55·9

  Shropshire

  19·7

  28·0

  55·5

  60·1

  Staffordshire

  15·8

  21·9

  48·2

  53·0

  Warwickshire

  10·9

  15·3

  50·8

  55·2

  England

  9·0

  13·1

  34·1

  39·1

  Scotland

  12·4

  17·7

  42·6

  48·1

  Wales

  15·4

  20·2

  44·4

  50·8

  Northern Ireland

  17·9

  22·2

  42·4

  47·1

  All women

  West Midlands region

  18·0

  24·2

  52·0

  57·6

  West Midlands MC

  15·9

  21·0

  47·6

  53·9

  Hereford and Worcester

  17·7

  28·1

  55·7

  61·6

  Shropshire

  24·3

  33·1

  62·3

  66·5

  Staffordshire

  22·4

  28·8

  56·2

  60·4

  Warwickshire

  16·6

  21·9

  58·1

  62·2

  England

  13·5

  18·4

  40·9

  45·9

  Scotland

  17·9

  23·9

  49·4

  54·7

  Wales

  20·3

  26·8

  51·8

  57·7

  Northern Ireland

  25·6

  31·2

  52·1

  56·4

  296
  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Full-time employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: Percentage with weekly earnings (including overtime) below the following specified amounts

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Manual men

  West Midlands region

  4·7

  7·0

  22·5

  27·3

  West Midlands MC

  4·4

  6·6

  18·8

  23·2

  Hereford and Worcester

  4·6

  7·7

  30·9

  35·7

  Shropshire

  3·4

  6·2

  25·5

  32·0

  Staffordshire

  5·9

  8·2

  27·3

  32·9

  Warwickshire

  5·1

  6·8

  20·8

  24·7

  England

  4·6

  6·7

  21·2

  26·1

  Scotland

  6·8

  9·3

  26·0

  31·4

  Wales

  6·4

  10·0

  26·8

  32·1

  Northern Ireland

  13·7

  18·5

  40·5

  46·8

  Non-manual men

  West Midlands region

  3·1

  4·5

  12·5

  14·8

  West Midlands MC

  3·2

  4·6

  12·1

  14·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  2·3

  3·3

  10·5

  13·9

  Shropshire

  2·7

  3·1

  11·9

  15·0

  Staffordshire

  3·9

  5·3

  15·6

  17·9

  Warwickshire

  2·4

  4·8

  11·8

  12·4

  England

  2·3

  3·4

  9·9

  11·9

  Scotland

  3·1

  4·7

  12·2

  14·7

  Wales

  3·5

  4·9

  14·1

  16·1

  Northern Ireland

  7·2

  9·7

  16·4

  19·7

  All men

  West Midlands region

  3·9

  5·8

  17·7

  21·3

  West Midlands MC

  3·8

  5·6

  15·4

  18·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  3·5

  5·7

  21·5

  25·7

  Shropshire

  3·1

  4·9

  19·9

  25·0

  Staffordshire

  5·0

  6·9

  22·1

  26·2

  Warwickshire

  3·7

  5·8

  16·3

  18·6

  England

  3·3

  4·9

  15·1

  18·4

  Scotland

  4·9

  7·0

  19·2

  23·2

  Wales

  5·1

  7·7

  21·0

  24·8

  Northern Ireland

  10·5

  14·1

  28·6

  33·4

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Full time employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: Percentage with weekly earnings (excluding overtime) below the following specified amounts

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Manual women

  West Midlands region

  42·2

  52·1

  83·7

  88·1

  West Midlands MC

  41·1

  50·8

  82·0

  87·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  41·3

  57·7

  86·5

  90·4

  Shropshire

  47·0

  60·6

  93·9

  97·0

  Staffordshire

  44·0

  50·5

  81·0

  84·3

  Warwickshire

  40·3

  48·6

  88·9

  93·1

  England

  37·7

  47·4

  77·4

  81·9

  Scotland

  42·1

  52·8

  83·3

  87·3

  Wales

  40·9

  53·8

  82·8

  85·7

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Non-manual women

  West Midlands region

  13·4

  19·6

  47·4

  53·1

  West Midlands MC

  11·4

  16·8

  43·7

  49·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  14·1

  23·0

  50·5

  57·0

  Shropshire

  21·1

  29·8

  58·7

  62·8

  Staffordshire

  17·1

  23·3

  50·4

  56·0

  Warwickshire

  11·3

  16·5

  52·8

  56·0

  England

  9·8

  14·3

  36·1

  41·3

  Scotland

  14·0

  19·4

  45·5

  50·8

  Wales

  16·7

  21·4

  46·2

  52·7

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All women

  West Midlands region

  19·8

  26·8

  55·4

  60·8

  West Midlands MC

  17·3

  23·6

  51·3

  57·2

  Hereford and Worcester

  20·0

  30·6

  58·4

  64·3

  Shropshire

  27·1

  37·0

  66·9

  70·8

  297

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Staffordshire

  24·6

  30·8

  58·9

  63·9

  Warwickshire

  17·8

  23·7

  60·9

  64·4

  England

  14·9

  20·3

  43·6

  48·6

  Scotland

  19·7

  26·2

  53·2

  58·2

  Wales

  22·2

  28·8

  54·6

  60·3

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note: "—" denotes information not available.

  Full time employees on adult rates whose par was unaffected by absence: Percentage with weekly earnings (excluding overtime) below the following specified amounts

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Manual men

  West Midlands region

  7·2

  11·1

  34·1

  40·5

  West Midlands MC

  6·4

  10·0

  28·4

  35·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  7·2

  13·3

  47·7

  52·1

  Shropshire

  6·8

  11·5

  42·2

  50·9

  Staffordshire

  9·2

  12·8

  41·3

  47·9

  Warwickshire

  7·7

  10·7

  28·0

  32·7

  England

  6·7

  10·3

  32·1

  38·5

  Scotland

  9·2

  13·7

  39·4

  46·6

  Wales

  8·6

  13·7

  38·1

  45·9

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Non-manual men

  West Midlands region

  3·8

  5·4

  14·8

  17·3

  West Midlands MC

  3·9

  5·4

  14·6

  17·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  2·6

  3·6

  12·3

  15·2

  Shropshire

  2·7

  4·0

  15·5

  19·5

  Staffordshire

  5·0

  6·8

  17·5

  19·6

  Warwickshire

  3·3

  5·1

  13·9

  15·1

  England

  2·7

  4·1

  11·8

  14·0

  Scotland

  3·7

  5·7

  14·4

  17·1

  Wales

  4·4

  6·1

  15·9

  18·4

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All men

  West Midlands region

  5·6

  8·3

  24·8

  29·3

  West Midlands MC

  5·1

  7·7

  21·4

  26·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  5·1

  8·9

  31·4

  35·1

  Shropshire

  5·1

  8·4

  31·2

  38·0

  Staffordshire

  7·3

  10·1

  30·6

  35·2

  Warwickshire

  5·5

  7·9

  21·0

  24·0

  England

  4·5

  6·9

  21·0

  25·1

  Scotland

  6·5

  9·8

  27·1

  32·1

  Wales

  6·7

  102

  28·0

  33·4

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note: "—" denotes information not available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foxes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has as to the number of foxes living in the larger urban areas of Great Britain; and how the density of the fox population in urban areas compares with that in rural areas;

  (2) what surveys his Department has carried out into the health hazards associated with the presence of foxes in urban areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  The average fox population density in cities varies between 1:2·24 fox families per square kilometre. However higher densities are found in some cities up to 8·5 adult foxes per square kilometre. In rural areas fox densities vary widely, depending on habitat, between one fox per 30 hectares in rich habitats to one pair 298
  per 4,000 hectares in poor habitats. This Department has not carried out any surveys into health hazards associated with urban foxes, but they can become infected with a variety of parasites and diseases, including rabies.

  Common Agricultural Policy Fraud
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospects of eliminating fraud in European Community matters, in particular that associated with the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom remains at the forefront of the fight against fraud in the European Community. In particular, the United Kingdom continues to press the European Commission for further action to implement, and update, measures included in the 45-point anti-fraud programme adopted in 1989 with our strong support. Substantial progress has already been made; measures in connection with the common agricultural policy include:mandatory minimum levels of physical checks on export refunds
  strengthened requirements for annual stocktaking of intervention stocks
  improved procedures for reporting irregularities
  improved procedures for auditing payments
  the inclusion of improved control arrangements in regulations implementing common agricultural policy schemes

ENERGY

  Advertising
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much money was spent on media advertising in February and March 1990 concerning energy efficiency and global warming; and how many coupons requesting booklets were subsequently received as a result of the advertising campaign.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The cost of the March 1990 advertising campaign was £405,959.15; 9,034 information packs were subsequently dispatched.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the expenditure incurred on(a) the assisted places scheme and (b) city technology colleges in each year of the programmes so far, together with the proposed expenditure in future years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The assisted places scheme was launched in 1981. The city technology colleges programme was launched in 1986. Actual Government expenditure to 1990–91 and estimated and planned expenditure for future years on the APS and the CTC programme are shown in the table. In addition, private sponsors have pledged well over £30 million to the CTC programme.
  299

  Table

  Financial Year

  (a) Assisted Places scheme £ million

  (b) City Technology Colleges £ million

  1981–82 (outturn)

  3

  —

  1982–83 (outturn)

  9

  —

  1983–84 (outturn)

  15

  —

  1984–85 (outturn)

  22

  —

  1985–86 (outturn)

  30

  —

  1986–87 (outturn)

  38

  —

  1987–88 (outturn)

  46

  1

  1988–89 (outturn)

  51

  14

  1989–90 (outturn)

  57

  30

  1990–91 (outturn)

  63

  58

  1991–92 (estimated outturn)

  65

  51

  1992–93 (plans)

  78

  54

  1993–94 (plans)

  84

  55

  1994–95 (plans)

  89

  56

  Notes: The figures are cash plans rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Research (Diseases)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the overall figure spent by the Medical Research Council into research into diseases affecting older people in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Most diseases affect people of all ages and become more critical in old age. Total expenditure by the MRC over the last five years on all research, including training awards and fellowships, has been:

  £ Thousands

  1986–87

  125,188

  1987–88

  135,195

  1988–89

  149,779

  1989–90

  172,346

  1990–91

  181,077

  By far the greater part of all that research is potentially relevant to improving the health of any age group, including older people.

  Books and Equipment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the most recent figure for annual expenditure on books and equipment in schools, excluding provision for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Mr. Fallon
  In 1989–90, the latest year for which actual spending information is available, expenditure in England on books and equipment in nursery, primary, secondary and special schools was some £390 million. Expenditure on provision for 16 to 19-year-olds is not separately identified and is included within this total.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the most recent figure for the annual cost of teacher salaries.

  Mr. Fallon
  In 1989–90, the latest year for which actual spending information is available, expenditure in England on teaching staff in nursery, primary, secondary and special schools was some £7,339 million. This includes gross pay and employers' contributions to national insurance and superannuation.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the cost of student loans in each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Student loans are available for all eligible students who apply for them. Levels of expenditure on loans depend on the level of demand and the rates and conditions of loans prescribed in the statutory regulations for each year.

  Table 1 in the departmental report of the Department of Education and Science (Cm 1911) sets out planned net public expenditure provision for England and Wales of £137 million for 1992–93, £204 million for 1993–94 and £286 million for 1994–95. We shall review the expenditure plans for future years—and the underlying planning assumptions—in successive public expenditure surveys.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's estimate of the extra revenue costs of extending nursery places to 80 per cent. of three and four-year-olds.

  Mr. Eggar
  The extra revenue costs are difficult to estimate since they would depend on the types of provision and on the precise balance between full-time and part-time attendance. Assuming the current mix of types of provision and modes of attendance, a broad extrapolation from the estimated cost per pupil for all forms of provision made by local education authorities for the under-fives1 suggests an extra annual recurrent cost of approximately £530 million at 1991–92 prices. In addition there would be capital costs; and costs would also be incurred in training or retaining the additional teaching and ancillary staff who would be needed.

  1Table 2 of DES departmental report "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1992–93 to 1994–95", Cm 1911.

  Further Education
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the average hourly cost of a part-time place in a further education college.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average hourly cost for students in all modes of attendance in a further education college was £2·80 in 1988–89 (the latest year available). There are no figures available for part-time students separately.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's estimate of the cost of extending an entitlement to student fees to part-time students on higher education courses.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The cost would depend on what decisions were taken about eligible courses, their duration, the maximum fee entitlement and the account to be taken of the personal circumstances of potentially eligible students.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the most recent figure for annual expenditure on services for children with special needs.

  Mr. Fallon
  In 1989–90, the latest year for which actual spending information is available, school-based expenditure in special schools in England was some £688 million. Expenditure in primary and secondary schools on services for children with special needs attending such schools is not collected separately. The figure for special schools does not include costs of services such as child guidance and educational psychology provided centrally by local education authorities, nor of LEAs' central administration to support special education, as these costs were not apportioned between services in LEAs' expenditure returns.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the cost of uprating the student grant to allow for inflation since it was last uprated.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The cost of increasing the main rates of grant payable under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1991 in line with with the Government's current estimate of inflation since those rates were last increased in 1990 would be £66·4 million. This figure assumes student numbers to be consistent with the autumn statement and that no other provisions of the regulations are changed.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Egypt
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to contribute to the social fund project in Egypt to mitigate the social impact of economic reform; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are participating substantially in the social fund project through our share of International Development Association and European Community contributions. Our bilateral aid programme for Egypt is fully allocated to other priority development areas agreed with the Egyptian Government.

  CIS
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional staff have been recruited to deal with aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States by(a) the Overseas Development Administration and (b) the EC.

  Mrs. Chalker
  (a) At present we have 34 staff from the Overseas Development Administration dealing with aid to the Commonwealth of Indpependent States and other eastern European countries. Precise disaggregation would not be realistic. Individuals have not been recruited specifically for these positions, but additional staff have been recruited generally to the ODA to permit the expansion in our activities.
  302
  (b) An additional 40 mecu has now been agreed to reinforce the Commission's external activities. We understand that its intention is to establish at least 140 now posts in DGI and convert a further 150 from expert to statutory posts. Many of these additional posts will support the Community aid programmes in the Commonwealth of Independent States.

  United Nations Funding
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the decision no to fund the second phase of the United Nations international fund for agricultural development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 12 February at column 528.

PRIME MINISTER

  London School of Economics
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the action necessary by the relevant Government Departments for the London School of Economics to be successful in its bid to move to the old London county council building on the south bank.

  The Prime Minister
  The London School of Economics has as yet made no formal bid to the London Residuary Body, which is responsible to the local taxpayers of London for the disposal of county hall, for the acquisition of the site. Should it do so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would then be in a position to consider the matter in consultation with the residuary body.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Appeals, North East Region
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of appeals heard and decided by tribunals concerning(a) mobility allowances, (b) attendance allowances, (c) invalidity benefit, (d) injury and disablement benefit and (e) non-income related benefit in the North East region in the last two years.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available annual statistics for social security appeal tribunals and medical appeal tribunals are for the year ending December 1990. The relevant information for the north-east region is given in the tables.

  Social security appeal tribunals

  Heard and decided appeals

  Year ending December 1989

  Year ending December 1990

  Mobility allowance

  214

  223

  Attendance allowance

  23

  28

  Invalidity benefit

  1,418

  1,354

  Disablement benefit

  459

  637

  Child benefit

  233

  271

  Invalid care allowance

  73

  57

  Maternity allowance

  16

  16

  Retirement pension

  167

  168

  303

  Social security appeal tribunals

  Heard and decided appeals

  Year ending December 1989

  Year ending December 1990

  Severe disablement allowance

  26

  23

  Unemployment benefit

  2,787

  2,194

  Widows benefit

  115

  82

  Medical appeal tribunals

  Heard and decided appeals

  1Six months ending December 1989

  Year ending December 1990

  Mobility allowance

  178

  1,206

  Severe disablement allowance

  36

  224

  Disablement benefit

  150

  1,900

  1Medical appeal tribunal statistics were collected from 1 July 1989.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the cost of restoring student entitlement to housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Based on information available when the new arrangements for student benefit entitlement were introduced, the estimated cost of restoring housing benefit entitlement to those students who are not currently eligible is estimated to be around £70 million at current prices.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out his Department's management statistics for the total number of claimants on income support, plus separately their partners and dependants, for each month since January 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available. Liveload figures based on May 1990 annual statistical enquiry, the latest date for which information is available, are as follows.

  Number

  Total number of claimants

  4,180,000

  Total number of partners

  691,000

  Total number of dependent children

  2,045,000

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry 1990.

  Pensions
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why the increase promised by the Secretary of State, in his statement on 21 October 1991, to pensioners over the age of 80 years, and which is to be effective from 1 April 1992, does not appear in newly issued pension books.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and Public Information Office.

  Income Support
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the cost of restoring student entitlement to income support during the summer; and what was the cost in the last year before it was removed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated expenditure on income support for students during the 1990 summer vacation was about £27 million. The estimated cost of restoring student entitlement to income support during the summer vacations, based on information available when the present arrangements were introduced, would be around £30 million at current prices.

WALES

  Dispensing Pharmacists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prescription items were dispensed by retail pharmacists in Wales in each year from 1977 onwards; and if he will publish the figures according to age categories of the consumers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of prescription items dispensed is given in the table.

  Prescription items dispensed (thousands)

  1977

  22,801

  1978

  23,853

  1979

  23,600

  1980

  23,676

  1981

  23,430

  1982

  24,033

  1983

  24,594

  1984

  24,966

  1985

  24,738

  1986

  25,083

  1987

  26,047

  1988

  27,072

  1989

  27,761

  1990

  28,299

  It is not possible to give numbers of prescription items dispensed according to the age of the consumer. However, the following table gives, for the years for which data are available, an estimate of the percentage of prescriptions which were exempt from charges by reason of age.

  Category of exemption

  Under 161

  Retirement age2

  1983

  14

  42

  1984

  14

  47

  1985

  14

  45

  1986

  13

  45

  1987

  3N/A

  3N/A

  1988

  13

  50

  1989

  12

  50

  1990

  12

  52

  1 Children aged under 16 and children aged under 19 in full-time education.

  2 Women aged 60 or over and men aged 65 or over.

  3 Not available.

  Archaeological Excavations
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the instances in the past 12 months in which Monmouth borough council has(a) imposed a watching brief condition on the advice of Glamorgan and Gwent archaeological trust or (b) required preservation in situ or archaeological excavation in advance of development.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses were built in Wales in the years 1979, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is given in the table:

  Local authority completions

  Number

  1979

  3,010

  1987

  810

  1988

  793

  1989

  566

  1990

  551

  1991

  1388

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the annual amount spent on council house maintenance in Wales in the years, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  1987

  1991

  1992

  (i) Wales

  Male

  Total

  Male

  Total

  Male

  Total

  January

  83·0

  85·7

  89·6

  92·2

  86·7

  90·1

  February

  83·4

  86·2

  89·2

  91·9

  —

  —

  March

  83·9

  86·6

  88·9

  917

  —

  —

  April

  84·1

  86·8

  88·6

  91·5

  —

  —

  May

  84·7

  87·3

  88·6

  91·5

  —

  —

  June

  85·3

  87·8

  88·6

  91·5

  —

  —

  July

  85·3

  87·7

  88·1

  91·1

  —

  —

  August

  85·5

  87·9

  88·0

  90·9

  —

  —

  September

  85·1

  87·5

  87·8

  90·8

  —

  —

  October

  85·7

  88·0

  87·9

  91·0

  —

  —

  November

  85·8

  88·3

  87·6

  90·8

  —

  —

  December

  85·8

  88·2

  87·2

  90·5

  —

  —

  1987

  1991

  1992

  (ii) Valleys

  Male

  Total

  Male

  Total

  Male

  Total

  January

  77·9

  81·8

  84·2

  88·6

  80·6

  86·0

  February

  78·3

  82·3

  83·8

  88·4

  —

  —

  March

  78·9

  82·9

  83·0

  87·8

  —

  —

  April

  78·9

  82·9

  82·4

  87–3

  —

  —

  May

  79·3

  83·2

  82·3

  87·3

  —

  —

  June

  80·0

  83·8

  82·4

  87·4

  —

  —

  July

  80·1

  83·8

  81·7

  86·8

  —

  —

  August

  80·4

  84·1

  81·7

  86·7

  —

  —

  September

  79·9

  83·6

  81·5

  86·7

  —

  —

  October

  80·8

  84·5

  81·9

  87·1

  —

  —

  November

  81·2

  85·0

  81·7

  86·9

  —

  —

  December

  81·2

  84·9

  81·3

  86·6

  —

  —

TRANSPORT

  Shipping North Sea
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels operating in support of the North sea oil industry, United Kingdom sector, are under(a) the British flag and (b) foreign flags, by country.
  306
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is available only by financial year. Figures for the financial years 1987–88 to 1990–91 are given in the following table. They have been derived from local authorities housing revenue account subsidy claim forms. Expenditure in 1990–91 is the sum of maintenance expenditure charged either to the housing revenue account or the housing repairs account.

  Council house maintenance expenditure in Wales

  £ million

  1987–88

  191·8

  1988–89

  94·6

  1989–90

  106·5

  1990–91

  2110·1

  1 Includes an estimate for those authorities who did not submit subsidy claim forms.

  2 Provisional.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current(a) male and (b) total employment percentage in (i) Wales and (ii) the area covered by the valleys initiative in each month of 1987 and 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Estimated percentages of the work force in employment, including those on work-related government training programmes, are given in the following table:

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On 31 January 1992, there were 147 vessels operating as supply, anchor handling and other support vessels and, in addition, 176 standby vessels in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea in support of the oil industry. The countries of registration and the numbers involved were:
  307

  Support Vessels

  Number

  United Kingdom

  86

  Norway

  22

  Denmark

  10

  Netherlands

  8

  Germany

  3

  Others

  18

  Standby Vessels

  Number

  United Kingdom

  149

  Isle of man

  9

  Bermuda

  2

  Norway

  2

  Netherlands

  1

  Cayman Islands

  4

  Bahamas

  4

  United States of America

  5

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will delay publication of the White Paper on railway privatisation until after the general election.

  Mr. Freeman
  We will publish our White Paper as soon as we are ready.

  Flight Safety
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of co-ordination of research effort in matters of flight safety.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the United Kingdom the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for co-ordinating research on civil flight safety. The machinery for this co-ordination is being reviewed, so as both to increase managerial accountability within the authority and to obtain additional advice from outside.

  Research on flight safety in Europe is co-ordinated as appropriate through the joint aviation authorities or Eurocontrol. I expect to see more extensive co-ordination of research in this field in the years ahead.

  Table 1

  Non-industrial staff in post in Scotland by Department (including Agencies) and Scottish region at 1 October 1991 (excluding Scottish Office)

  Department

  Highland

  Grampian

  Tayside

  Fife

  Lothian

  Borders

  Central

  Strathclyde

  Dumfries

  Islands

  Total

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  8

  93

  11

  —

  31

  6

  5

  19

  6

  2

  181

  Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal

  35

  60

  72

  43

  305

  9

  47

  584

  28

  8

  1,191

  Customs and Excise

  48

  250

  116

  34

  333

  11

  70

  790

  17

  28

  1,697

  Defence

  80

  272

  227

  1,467

  362

  1

  158

  4,032

  54

  90

  6,743

  Employment Department Group

  205

  284

  340

  219

  1,140

  52

  184

  2,348

  97

  52

  4,921

  Energy

  —

  8

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  70

  —

  —

  80

  Environment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  —

  —

  21

  —

  —

  68

  PSA Service

  16

  70

  22

  46

  453

  —

  5

  254

  14

  13

  893

  General Register Office, Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  303

  —

  —

  21

  —

  —

  324

  Home Office

  —

  —

  6

  —

  3

  7

  —

  —

  219

  —

  235

  Inland Revenue

  159

  243

  195

  137

  1,942

  45

  97

  3,752

  72

  —

  6,642

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  36

  —

  114

  167

  National Savings

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,562

  —

  —

  2,562

  Ordnance Survey

  10

  7

  7

  8

  24

  3

  5

  33

  6

  —

  103

  OPCS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108

  —

  —

  108

  ODA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  555

  —

  —

  555

  Registers of Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,112

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,112

  Scottish Courts Administration

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161

  —

  —

  —

  161

  Scottish Courts Service

  26

  51

  46

  36

  218

  6

  34

  369

  23

  6

  815

  Scottish Record Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  117

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  117

  Social Security

  174

  389

  427

  334

  1,465

  74

  315

  4,325

  133

  62

  7,698

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage increase in tolls on the Severn bridge will be introduced in April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]: The tolls which will apply from 26 April, as provided for under the Severn Bridges Act 1992, involve the following increases over the current tolls at the Severn bridge, based on the cost of a return trip over the bridge:

  Per cent.

  Cars and motor caravans

  40

  Light vans and minibuses

  180

  Buses and goods vehicles

  110

  These increases are a reflection of the cost of building the second Severn bridge, which will provide a substantial and eagerly awaited improvement in the road links between south Wales and England.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service (Scotland)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list how many non-Scottish Office civil service jobs there are in Scotland by Government Department and location of employment.

  Mr. Maples
  The number of non-industrial civil servants employed in Scotland—other than in the Scottish Office—at 1 October 1991 totalled 37,926. Table 1 gives a detailed breakdown by Department and by Scottish region.

  In addition, another 6,355 industrial civil servants were employed in Scotland—other than in the Scottish Office—at 1 April 1991 (the latest available information). Table 2 gives a departmental analysis. No breakdown by Scottish region is available.
  309

  Department

  Highland

  Grampian

  Tayside

  Fife

  Lothian

  Borders

  Central

  Strathclyde

  Dumfries

  Islands

  Total

  Trade and Industry

  —

  1

  2

  —

  47

  —

  —

  323

  —

  —

  373

  Transport

  32

  94

  32

  26

  197

  5

  5

  219

  7

  43

  660

  Other

  —

  —

  4

  2

  490

  —

  3

  21

  —

  —

  520

  TOTAL

  793

  1,828

  1,501

  2,355

  8,612

  212

  1,089

  20,661

  457

  418

  37,926

  Note: Figures are on a full-time equivalent basis, i.e. part-timers are counted as half units.

  Source: MANDATE/Departments.

  Table 2

  Industrial staff in post in Scotland by Department (including agencies) at 1 April 1991 (excluding Scottish Office)

  Department

  Number

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  13

  Defence

  5,432

  Employment Department Group

  5

  HMSO

  72

  Ordnance Survey

  4

  Social Security

  3

  Trade and Industry

  74

  Transport

  704

  HM Treasury (inc. Forward/CISCO)

  35

  Others

  13

  TOTAL

  6,355

  Note: Figures are on a full time equivalent basis, ie part-timers are counted as half units.

  Source: Civil Service Statistics 1991 Edition.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss of revenue from income tax at(a) the standard rate and (b) the higher rate, of allowing husbands and wives to aggregate their incomes for tax purposes and divide by two; and whether he will publish a table showing the loss by range of total incomes and the number of incomes in each case.

  Mr. Maude
  Approximate figures at 1991–92 levels of income are given in the table:

  Total income £ per year

  Number of taxpaying in a full year married couples(million)

  Revenue loss in a full year £million

  0 to 10,000

  0·9

  400

  10,000 to 15,000

  2·2

  1,700

  15,000 to 20,000

  2·2

  1,800

  20,000 to 40,000

  2·7

  1,900

  30,000 to 40,000

  1·0

  800

  40,000 to 50,000

  0·4

  600

  Over 50,000

  0·6

  1,600

  £ billion

  1970–71

  1974–75

  1978–79

  1990–91

  (i) NICs 1

  employers

  1·4

  3·1

  6·2

  20–4

  employees

  1·3

  2·4

  4·1

  14·9

  (ii) Income tax 2

  total tax liability

  6·2

  11·8

  20·3

  59·4

  total liability at higher rate

  —

  1·5

  1·8

  12·5

  total liability at excess over standard rate

  0·3

  0·6

  0·8

  4·7

  (iii) VAT3

  —

  2·8

  5·2

  32·5

  (iv) Other indirect taxes 4

  5·2

  4·9

  9·0

  24–0

  310

  Total income £ per year

  Number of taxpaying in a full year married couples(million)

  Revenue loss in a full year £million

  Total

  10·0

  8,800

  These estimates do not allow for any behavioural effect that might result from such a change in the tax system.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of income tax paid by Scottish-based taxpayers.

  Mr. Maude
  The amount of income tax liability for residents of Scotland was estimated to be £3·49 billion for 1988–89, the latest available year.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Scottish-based income tax payers' affairs are handled by tax offices in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maude
  Of 1·9 million single people and married men liable to income tax in 1988–89 and resident in Scotland, about 400,000 had their income tax affairs handled by tax offices in England and Wales. The corresponding information about married women under independent taxation is not yet available.

  Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing for 1970, 1974, 1979 and 1990–91, the amount collected in (i)(a) employees and (b) employers national insurance contributions, (ii) income tax at the (c) standard and (d) higher rates, (iii) value added tax and (iv) other indirect taxes.

  Mr. Maude
  The information requested is given in the table.
  311

  1 Excludes national insurance surcharge (levied from 1977–78 until 1984–85)

  2 Until 1972–73, Surtax, a deferred instalment of income tax charged at rates additional to the standard rate, was payable.

  3 VAT excluding that refunded on central government and local authority expenditure.

  4 Other customs and excise duties. Includes purchase tax in 1970–71.

  European Community Fraud
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards implementing recommendations contained in the European Court of Auditors' report in regard to fraud.

  Mr. Maude
  The Community took an important step to combat fraud against the Community budget by the adoption, in 1989, of a 45-point action programme, which covers areas of irregularity, particularly in agriculture, identified in the reports of the court. The Commission produces, for consideration by the Council and European Parliament, an annual report on the fight against fraud which details the progress made. The action taken includes steps by the Commission to revise its operating systems, to simplify existing legislation, and to consider new measures to prevent irregularities in the implementation of the budget. The Commission is currently considering the measures needed to bring the 45-point action programme up to date, on the basis of proposals from member states including the United Kingdom.

  The further important recent development was the agreement at Maastricht that the treaty should clearly place responsibility on member states to counter fraud affecting the Community's finances. The Maastricht treaty also seeks to strengthen procedures to counter fraud and irregularities by requiring the Court of Auditors to provide a statement of assurance on the reliability of the Community's accounts; by making explicit the Commission's responsibility for sound financial management; and by giving enhanced powers to the European Parliament to examine the Commission on the basis of the court's observations including action it has taken in response. The Government will also continue their active role in the Council, pressing to ensure that the scope for fraud and irregularities continues to be narrowed.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of increasing the maximum limit for mortgage tax relief to(a) £40,000, (b) £50,000 and (c) £60,000.

  Mr. Maude
  The estimated costs at 1991–92 levels of increasing the ceiling on mortgage interest tax relief are shown in the table.

  Ceiling on mortgage interest tax relief

  Cost of increasing the ceiling on mortgage interest tax relief for 1991–921

  £

  £ billion

  40,000

  0·7

  50,000

  1·1

  60,000

  1·3

  1 The estimates are based on the distribution of existing mortgages and therefore exclude behavioural effects which might result from the change and could be substantial.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 336, if he will indicate which shares for each of the concerns privatised since 1979 are currently held by (a) individual shareholders, (b) pension funds, (c) domestic companies, (d) overseas companies and (e) others.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]: This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Private Investment
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of total overseas private investment; and what was the level in 1979 expressed at current prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]: The estimated level of United Kingdom residents' identified direct investment (at book values) and portfolio investment (at market values), excluding public corporations' direct investment overseas, was £312 billion at the end of 1990. The corresponding figure at the end of 1979 was £44 billion (at end-1979 values) or £74 billion (at end-1990 values). Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Public Service Pay
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to amend the principle whereby the rates of civil and public servants are a matter of public record.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]: There are no plans to change arrangements whereby the Treasury makes publicly available pay scales, maxima and minima for the main civil service grades.

  The pay of individual officers will continue to be confidential to the individual, apart from in the case of a small number of senior staff whose pay is a matter of public interest.

  Policy for other parts of the public sector is a matter for the organisations concerned.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dentistry
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the dates on which the equipment recommended in the Poswillo report for resuscitation and monitoring of patients in connection with the provision of general anaesthetic in dentistry was installed in each community clinic in the area of the southern health and social services board; and if he will list those community clinics which have not yet received the equipment.

  Mr. Hanley
  The community clinics in the Southern health and social services board area which are equipped to the standards recommended in the Poswillo report arc as follows:
  313
  Clinic

  Thomas Street, Dungannon

  Dobbin Street, Armagh

  St. Luke's Hospital, Armagh

  John Mitchell Place, Newry

  Each of these clinics met the recommended standards prior to 1990. As to the other clinics in the Southern board, equipment for the Banbridge clinic is currently being ordered, and the Brownlow health centre will be equipped to Poswillo standards when it reopens in the summer.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make provision for a fifth cardiac surgeon at the Royal Victoria hospital, at Belfast.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Eastern health and social services board is responsible for the management of the cardiac surgery unit at the Royal Victoria hospital. A fourth cardiac surgeon, who is a locum, has recently been appointed and will take up post on 1 May 1992 for a period of one year, with a review and possible extension at the end of that period. I am not aware of any plans to make provision for a fifth cardiac surgeon at the Royal Victoria hospital but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a very high priority will continue to be accorded to the specialty.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reduce the waiting lists for cardiac surgery.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government have provided significant additional capital and revenue funding to enable more cardiac operations to be carried out at the Royal Victoria hospital. An extension to the cardiac recovery unit costing £1·5 million was completed in October 1991, and funds of £300,000 were made available for a fourth cardiac surgeon and supporting team. A locum surgeon has been appointed and will take up post on 1 May 1992. In addition, health and social services boards are purchasing cardiac operations for their resident populations from other parts of the United Kingdom. It is the Government's intention in respect of the cardiac surgery waiting list to honour, at the earliest possible date, the guarantee in the citizens charter that no one should have to wait for more than two years for a cardiac operation.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated value of savings in public expenditure and the estimated additional cost to employers in Northern Ireland to date of changes in statutory sick pay regulations since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated value of savings to date is £5 million and the estimated additional cost to employers is correspondingly £5 million.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Republic of Ireland is now involved in the matter of public appointments in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Irish Government may put forward views and proposals on the role and composition 314
  of bodies appointed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or by Departments subject to his direction and control, as envisaged by article 6 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how man Protestants are employed by the establishment in the(a) Newry and Mourne council area and (b) Strabane whose employees are over 90 per cent. Protestant.

  Mr. Needham
  Monitoring returns submitted to the Fair Employment Commission in 1991 show that there are 118 Protestants employed in such concerns in the Newry and Mourne council area. There are no concerns in the Strabane council area whose employees are over 90 per cent. Protestant.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Roman Catholics are employed by the establishments in(a) the Newry and Mourne council area, (b) the Omagh council area and (c) Strabane, whose employees are over 90 per cent. Roman Catholic.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is:

  Number

  Newry and Mourne council area

  1,971

  Omagh council area

  156

  Strabane council area

  319

  The information is derived from the monitoring returns submitted to the Fair Employment Commission in 1991.

  Distilleries (Financial Support)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the value of financial support given in each of the past five years to(a) Bushmills distillery and (b) Bass Ireland brewery.

  Mr. Needham
  The value of financial support given to the Bushmills distillery and the Bass Ireland brewery in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Year

  Bushmills distillery £

  Bass Ireland £

  1987–88

  96,151·98

  195,885·63

  1988–89

  47,093·55

  9,113·50

  1989–90

  9,678·60

  Nil

  1990–91

  150,160·00

  Nil

  1991–92

  169,176·27

  Nil

  TOTAL

  472,260·40

  204,999·13

  Killough Conservation Area
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in relation to the enhancement strategy for the Killough conservation area.

  Mr. Needham
  A contract has been let to replace the existing concrete bollards and further upgrade the Castle street car park in Killough.

  Roads
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure for(a) road improvements, (b) road repairs on (i) A category, (ii) B

  DOE (NI)

  Road improvements £ million

  Road repairs £ million

  Roads service division

  Class A and B roads

  Class C and unclassified roads

  Class A and B roads

  Class C and unclassified roads

  1986–87

  Ballymena

  1·33

  0·82

  2·22

  4·23

  Belfast

  4·51

  0·52

  2·27

  6·43

  Coleraine

  2·43

  0·82

  3·41

  5·98

  Craigavon

  2·80

  0·41

  3·03

  5·34

  Downpatrick

  1·72

  1·38

  3·25

  6·02

  Omagh

  1·43

  0·56

  3·96

  5·03

  1987–88

  Ballymena

  1·70

  0·78

  2·48

  3·98

  Belfast

  4·07

  0·65

  2·21

  7·10

  Coleraine

  2·79

  0·37

  2·16

  3·90

  Craigavon

  2·63

  0·40

  2·66

  5·58

  Downpatrick

  2·04

  1·02

  3·50

  5·88

  Omagh

  1·45

  0·80

  3·21

  5·74

  1988–89

  Ballymena

  3·81

  0·41

  2·49

  4·03

  Belfast

  2·74

  0·73

  2·42

  7·41

  Coleraine

  1·73

  0·48

  3·04

  3·78

  Craigavon

  2·47

  0·51

  3·70

  5·20

  Downpatrick

  3·63

  1·34

  3·84

  5·82

  Omagh

  1·22

  0·86

  4·41

  5·71

  1989–90

  Ballymena

  2·84

  0·46

  3·81

  3·72

  Belfast

  7·52

  0·83

  3·78

  7·60

  Coleraine

  2·03

  0·75

  3·60

  4·03

  Craigavon

  1·78

  0·91

  4·45

  5·08

  Downpatrick

  2·32

  1·26

  5·19

  5·62

  Omagh

  3·97

  0·77

  5·46

  6·00

  1990–91

  Ballymena

  2·65

  0·36

  4·27

  3·93

  Belfast

  5·99

  0·97

  3·70

  7·79

  Coleraine

  1·70

  0·89

  4·12

  4·23

  Craigavon

  2·37

  0·89

  5·24

  5·45

  Downpatrick

  3·65

  0·75

  6·02

  5·34

  Omagh

  4·56

  0·55

  6·35

  6·30

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total length of(a) A category, (b) B

  Department of the Environment (NI) roads service division

  Class 1 (A category) Kms

  Class 2 (B category) Kms

  Class 3 (C category) Kms

  Unclassified Kms

  Ballymena

  401·4

  446·8

  663·5

  1,764·1

  Belfast

  157·2

  122·0

  114·4

  1,287·4

  Coleraine

  374·9

  522·1

  550·3

  1,832·8

  Craigavon

  445·5

  564·7

  1,030·3

  3,034·5

  Downpatrick

  419·3

  330·7

  597·8

  1,822·5

  Omagh

  525·0

  888·6

  1,762·0

  4,507·7

  Rural Development
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total projected expenditure on(a) rural development division of the Department of Agriculture, (b) Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland, (c) interdepartmental committee on rural development and (d) other rural development initiatives in the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.
  316
  category, (iii) C category and (iv) unclassified roadways in each section of the Department of the Environment (NI) roads service in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information available is as follows:

  category, (c) C category and (d) unclassified roadways in each section of the Department of the Environment (NI) roads service.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Hanley
  Projected expenditure on the Government's rural development initiative is as follows:

  Rural Development Division of the Department of Agriculture
  The DANI Rural Development Division has been established progressively since February 1991. Running costs for the year to 31 March 1992 are estimated at £145,000. Projected running costs for 1992–93 are £263,000. Subject to pay and prices increases the running costs for subsequent years are projected at a similar level.
  317
  Northern Ireland Rural Development Council
  The Northern Ireland rural development council was established on 31 July 1991. Expenditure by the council in 1991–92 is estimated at £396,000, including both running costs and assistance to community-based rural development groups. Financial allocations to the rural development council for 1992–93 and subsequent years have not yet been finalised pending the outcome of the council's deliberations on its strategic plan and budgetary requirements.

  Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Development
  The costs of the committee have been absorbed within existing provision.

  Other Rural Development Initiatives

  1990–91—£234,000, financed in part by the EC, was incurred on rural development pilot projects.

  1991–92—Expenditure on rural development projects is estimated at £248,000, financed in part by the EC.

  Allocations for 1992–93 and subsequent years have not yet been finalised and will depend on, among other things, the outcome of the rural development council's strategy and budget discussions as well as the pattern of expenditure on the NI LEADER programme—for which £4 million is available from EC and national resources —and on any rural development projects under the community development measure of the EC INTERREG initiative.

  Housing Executive (Replacement Grant)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give full details of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's replacement grant scheme.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been informed by the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is responsible for the administration of the house renovation grants scheme, that details of the scheme are as follows.

  Replacement grants are available in respect of those dwellings where on technical and cost grounds, replacement is a more effective solution than improvement. The executive will decide through technical surveys of the dwelling and through value for money assessment —economic assessment—which dwellings will be suitable for a replacement option. In general, dwellings which are suitable subjects for improvement at reasonable costs will not be considered for replacement.

  Replacement will predominantly be aimed at rural properties which are considered necessary and viable to meet the housing requirements of the rural population. Such dwellings are likely to be occupied or have recently been occupied. Where vacant, the executive will have to be satisfied that replacement will be specifically required to meet the current housing needs of the applicants or members of his or her household as sole residence for the foreseeable future. Alternatively, such dwellings will be required to be available for letting.

  All new dwellings provided under this scheme will be required to meet standards set down by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the normal statutory approvals—planning, building control, etc.—will be required.

  The replacement grant will initially operate within the terms of the existing improvement grants legislation, and grant will be limited to the maximum grants applicable to the current improvement grants scheme.

  The details are as follows:

  1. £9,450 at the 75 per cent. grants level.

  318

  2. £11,340 at the 90 per cent. (financial hardship) grants level.

  In cases where the higher eligible expense level applies for the first time, service provision in excess of £1,500 the maximum grant levels will be increased as follows:

  1. £12,450 (75 per cent.)

  2. £14,940 (90 per cent.)

  To qualify as being in financial hardship, applicants must be receiving housing benefit or rate rebate, income support or family credit continually for at least six months before making a formal application for grant or before the executive gives formal grant approval.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when decisions will be issued in respect of applications for replacement grants submitted in the past six months.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been informed by the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is responsible for the administration of the house renovation grants scheme, that no formal applications for replacement grants have been submitted in the past six months. I am also informed that to date the executive has only received preliminary inquiries and that decisions on these will be issued in individual cases where replacement is determined to be the appropriate course of action. Formal applications supported by the required documentation will then have to be submitted for processing and approval.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many applications for replacement grants have been received by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; and in how many cases a decision has been issued;

  (2) how many replacement grants have been awarded by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been informed by the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is responsible for the administration of the house renovation grants scheme, that no completed formal applications have yet been received and as a result no replacement grants have yet been awarded.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests for a reduction in water charges were received by the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) in each year since 1985, in each water board area; and in how many cases reductions were agreed.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the number of requests for a reduction in water charges is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The numbers of reductions granted are as follows:

  Financial Year

  Division

  North

  South

  East

  West

  Total

  1985–86

  117

  210

  85

  225

  637

  1986–87

  267

  262

  132

  232

  893

  1987–88

  254

  227

  116

  199

  796

  1988–89

  214

  177

  133

  150

  674

  1989–90

  199

  227

  126

  172

  724

  1990–91

  115

  122

  112

  126

  475

  11991–92

  196

  246

  112

  180

  734

  TOTAL

  1,362

  1,471

  816

  1,284

  4,933

  319

  1 To 31 January 1992.

  Police Traffic Operations
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) police traffic officers and (b) civilians working in police traffic departments there were in each year since 1981.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Police Officers

  Civilians

  1981

  346

  23

  1982

  351

  23

  1983

  365

  23

  1984

  353

  25

  1985

  395

  27

  1986

  363

  33

  1987

  361

  33

  1988

  316

  31

  Reckless driving

  Failing to stop at pelican and zebra crossing

  Speeding

  Breach of traffic sign

  Drink, driving offences

  1981

  Proceeded against

  409

  —

  4,883

  532

  3,165

  Convicted

  377

  —

  4,840

  517

  3,108

  1982

  Proceeded against

  411

  —

  3,841

  528

  3,071

  Convicted

  363

  —

  3,834

  512

  2,997

  1983

  Proceeded against

  423

  —

  3,461

  686

  3,315

  Convicted

  386

  —

  3,437

  664

  3,228

  1984

  Proceeded against

  454

  —

  5,039

  749

  2,971

  Convicted

  418

  —

  5,005

  659

  2,913

  1985

  Proceeded against

  500

  —

  5,287

  873

  3,143

  Convicted

  468

  —

  5,234

  840

  3,083

  1986

  Proceeded against

  386

  nil

  4,726

  741

  3,042

  Convicted

  354

  nil

  4,673

  722

  2,985

  1987

  Proceeded against

  478

  1

  7,296

  780

  3,060

  Convicted

  456

  1

  7,229

  758

  2,989

  1988

  Proceeded against

  431

  5

  8,304

  830

  2,818

  Convicted

  392

  5

  8,199

  801

  2,750

  1989

  Proceeded against

  469

  3

  7,344

  722

  2,499

  Convicted

  420

  3

  7,268

  688

  2,432

  1990

  Proceeded against

  542

  8

  7,414

  799

  2,796

  Convicted

  480

  8

  7,312

  752

  2,705

  Notes:

  1. Prior to 1986, offences relating to pelican and zebra crossings are included in the figures for breach of traffic signs.

  2. Offences relating to bus lanes and traffic lights are included in the figures for breach of traffic signs.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many motorists have been(a) charged with and (b) convicted of assault against (i) pedestrians, (ii) cyclists and (iii) other motorists, in each year since 1981.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 February 19921: The information requested is not available from existing records.
  320

  Year

  Police Officers

  Civilians

  1989

  301

  31

  1990

  320

  30

  1991

  319

  30

  Traffic Offences
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many motorists have been(a) charged with and (b) convicted of (i) reckless driving, (ii) illegal use of bus lanes, (iii) failure to accord precedence at zebra and pedestrain crossings, (iv) speeding, (v) failure to stop at a red or amber traffic light and (vi) drunken driving, in each year since 1981.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 February 1991]: The available information is set out in the table:

  Traffic Statistics
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cyclists have been(a) injured and (b) killed in road traffic accidents in each year since 1981.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: The available information is as follows:
  321

  Year

  Cyclists injured

  Cyclists killed

  1981

  299

  7

  1982

  368

  9

  1983

  432

  154

  1984

  480

  13

  1985

  365

  10

  1986

  318

  10

  1987

  374

  12

  1988

  397

  4

  1989

  366

  9

  1990

  388

  11

  Year

  Total killed

  Pedestrian adults killed on or near pedestrian crossings

  Pedestrian children killed on or near pedestrian crossings

  Total injured

  Pedestrian adults injured on or near pedestrian crossings

  pedestrian children injured on or near pedestrian crossings

  1981

  223

  —

  —

  7,557

  —

  —

  1982

  216

  —

  —

  7,923

  —

  —

  1983

  173

  —

  —

  7,540

  —

  —

  1984

  189

  —

  —

  8,561

  —

  —

  1985

  177

  —

  —

  8,460

  —

  —

  1986

  236

  10

  2

  9,206

  155

  90

  1987

  214

  10

  0

  9,722

  129

  89

  1988

  178

  8

  2

  10,789

  176

  90

  1989

  181

  4

  1

  11,430

  150

  85

  1990

  185

  2

  1

  11,576

  147

  89

  Note: Prior to 1986 the numbers of pedestrian adults and children injured or killed on or near pedestrian crossings arc not separately identifiable.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Abdul Rauf
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General whom the appellate authorities notified when an appeal by Mr. Abdul Rauf, TH/19383/89, against refusal to grant a visa to visit the United Kingdom was upheld; when the notification was sent; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The immigration appellate authorities (IAA) notified the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service at Leeds and the Home Office on 26 September 1990 of the adjudicator's decision to allow Mr. Abdul Rauf's appeal.

  The IAA's records indicate that the correct procedures were used to notify the parties of the outcome of this appeal.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the numbers of mortgage repossession actions entered and orders made in the Coventry and Warwickshire area by county court division in each year since 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  The table gives the total number of mortgage possession actions entered and orders made in the Coventry county court and each of the three county courts in Warwickshire for each year since 1987. These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all of the orders made will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession. At this stage the 1991 figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision in the future.
  322
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the annual figures for (i) road deaths and (ii) injuries for each year since 1981, including the number of(a) children and (b) adults who have been hit by cars on or near pedestrian crossings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: The available information is set out in the table:

  Mortgage possession actions

  Court

  Year

  Actions entered

  Orders made

  Coventry

  1987

  560

  385

  1988

  454

  536

  1989

  668

  500

  1990

  1,213

  930

  1991

  1241

  1,328

  Warwick

  1987

  178

  70

  1988

  172

  129

  1989

  228

  126

  1990

  310

  217

  1991

  332

  321

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  1987

  67

  41

  1988

  43

  30

  1989

  75

  47

  1990

  122

  68

  1991

  206

  143

  Nuneaton

  1987

  484

  353

  1988

  343

  220

  1989

  560

  327

  1990

  848

  708

  1991

  998

  772

  Admission Appeals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many applications against refusal of admission made in Dhaka are awaiting determination by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in the United Kingdom.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not readily available because the Immigration Appeal Tribunal does not record the statistics sought by the hon. Member. In October 1991 there were 14 applications against refusal of admission made in Bangladesh awaiting determination by the appeal tribunal in the United Kingdom.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the quality of service performance indicators adopted by each of his and the Lord Chancellor's Departments executive agencies since their establishment and separately identify those quality of service performance indicators already operative prior to agency status.

  The Attorney-General
  The quality of service indicators operating in the Land Registry, the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department (the Law Officers' Departments have none), are:

  (a) speed of processing applications;

  (b) accuracy of the work produced;

  (c) number of complaints received.

  Prior to becoming an agency, standards of service existed for the first two aspects but not in respect of the number of complaints received.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the new forms of alternative working patterns introduced into each of his and the Lord Chancellor's Departments executive agencies since their establishment and provide a break-down by grade of the numbers of staff taking up each new working pattern for each agency.

  The Attorney-General
  The Land Registry, as the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department (the Law Officers' Departments have none) provides a wide range of alternative working patterns which were all introduced before it became an executive agency.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of each of his and the Lord Chancellor's Departments executive agencies; and whether the cost was borne by the parent department or the new agency.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost of events and publicity surrounding the launch of the Land Registry as an executive agency (the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department—the Law Officers' Departments have none) in July 1990 was £23,063. This included "open" days which enabled members of the public and others who use the registry's services to visit and see the work of the agency. The whole cost was met by the Land Registry.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff were in post on the date that each of the executive agencies in the Lord Chancellor's and Law Officers' Departments were established; and how many are in post now, in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  The Land Registry, as the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department (the Law Officers' Departments have none), became an executive agency on 2 July 1990, at which time there were 10,698 staff employed. The equivalent figure at 1 February 1992 was 9,637 staff.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the maximum salary payable to the chief executive of each of his and the Lord Chancellor's Departments executive agencies, including performance-related element, and the length of time of the chief executive's contract in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  The current maximum salary payable to the chief executive of the Land Registry, the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's324
  Department (the Law Officers' Departments have none), including a performance-related element, is £66,100. The contract is for 3¼ years—1 January 1991 to 31 March 1994. It is renewable.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those new facilities for staff including nurseries and health care schemes which have been introduced in each of his and the Lord Chancellor's Departments executive agencies since their establishment.

  The Attorney-General
  Since becoming an executive agency in July 1990, the Land Registry, as the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department (the Law Officers' Departments have none), has established or provided places in eight local holiday play schemes and two local nurseries. This is in addition to six pre-existing holiday play schemes. Six new ventures are currently being evaluated.

  Both before and after becoming an agency, the registry has pursued a range of health care measures, such as workplace policies on smoking, cervical cancer screening, and alcohol-related problems; giving publicity to national health campaigns; promoting healthy eating in staff restaurants; and providing awareness counselling and support through a readily accessible welfare service.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of each of his and the Lord Chancellor's Departments executive agencies; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  The Attorney-General
  The chief executive of the Land Registry, the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department (the Law Officers' Departments have none) has not pursued a course of study which would lead to a university or polytechnic degree.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list each of his and the Lord Chancellor's Departments executive agencies that operates a group bonus scheme and state the cash amount per person awarded in the last year for which figures were available and the conditions attached to its award.

  The Attorney-General
  The Land Registry, as the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department (the Law Officers' Departments have none), does not operate a group bonus scheme.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the post, grade and maximum salary payable, including performance-related elements, in each case where appointments have been made to his and the Lord Chancellor's Departments executive agencies at grade 7 or above, since their establishment.

  The Attorney-General
  The following appointments at grade 7 level and above have been made to the Land Registry since becoming an executive agency in July 1990 (the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department—the Law Officers' Departments have none):

  Post

  Grade

  Number

  Maximum pay £

  Chief Land Registrar (Chief Executive)

  2

  1

  66,100

  Solicitor to Land Registry

  3

  1

  57,000

  Director of Finance

  5

  1

  47,921

  325

  Post

  Grade

  Number

  Maximum Pay £

  Land Registrars

  5

  1

  53,740

  Deputy Establishment Officer

  6

  1

  42,724

  Controller of Operational Development

  6

  1

  42,724

  Head of Development Computer Services

  6

  1

  41,120

  Area Managers

  6

  4

  41,120

  Senior Assistant Land Registrars

  6

  4

  46,122

  Office Manager York

  7

  1

  33,175

  Head of Personnel Division 1

  7

  1

  34,667

  Head of Internal Audit

  7

  1

  34,667

  Principal, Legal Practice

  7

  1

  34,667

  Management Accountant

  7

  1

  34,667

  Finance Officer

  7

  1

  34,667

  Deputy Area Managers

  7

  7

  33,175

  Computer Services Divisional Managers

  7

  2

  33,175

  Assistant Land Registrars

  7

  19

  37,755

  Most of the appointments have been occasioned by retirements and the effect of two restructuring exercises, one based on a Treasury staff inspection report and the other on a review by management consultants.
  326
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General when the last annual report for each of his and the Lord Chancellor's Departments executive agencies were published; and when the next ones are due.

  The Attorney-General
  The annual report for 1990–91 of the Land Registry, the only executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department (the Law Officers' Departments have none) was published in October 1991. The report for 1991–92 is expected to be available in August of this year.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has any plans to amend the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulation 1989 to enable charitable or voluntary organisations which are subject to the special limitations imposed by rule 3 of the solicitors' practice rules to obtain payments on account from the Legal Aid Board; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has no proposals to amend the Legal Aid Regulations with regard to payments to charitable or voluntary organisations. Any solicitor acting for an assisted person under a legal aid certificate is entitled to apply for payments on account in accordance with the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989.

HEALTH

  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for the northern region and its constituent areas and districts, for each year from 1978–79 onwards, current expenditure on the hospital and community health services(a) in cash terms and (b) adjusted for NHS pay and prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Tables I and II show the information requested for the northern region.

  Both tables show expenditure in cash and in input volume terms. Changes in input volumes are, however, an inadequate guide to the level of service the NHS can be expected to achieve, since they do not reflect the continuing success of the NHS in increasing the efficiency with which it uses its resources. The third column of each table therefore shows the relevant expenditure figures in real terms, ie adjusted by the GDP deflator.

  Table 1

  Northern region—revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  1978–79

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Northern RHA

  9,583

  29,371

  24,295

  Cleveland

  46,448

  142,362

  117,759

  Cumbria

  36,569

  112,085

  92,714

  Durham

  46,474

  142,443

  117,826

  Northumberland

  26,511

  81,256

  67,213

  Gateshead

  13,457

  41,246

  34,118

  Newcastle on Tyne

  53,699

  164,586

  136,142

  North Tyneside

  9,029

  27,674

  22,891

  South Tyneside

  9,434

  28,917

  23,919

  Sunderland

  26,202

  80,310

  66,431

  Northern Region Total

  277,406

  850,250

  703,308

  1979–80

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Northern RHA

  12,363

  31,452

  26,864

  Cleveland

  57,350

  145,899

  124,616

  Cumbria

  43,755

  111,312

  95,075

  Durham

  56,071

  142,645

  121,837

  Northumberland

  31,819

  80,949

  69,140

  Gateshead

  16,436

  41,812

  35,713

  Newcastle on Tyne

  66,041

  168,008

  143,500

  North Tyneside

  10,965

  27,895

  23,826

  South Tyneside

  11,307

  28,766

  24,570

  Sunderland

  31,889

  81,125

  69,291

  Northern Region Total

  337,996

  859,863

  734,433

  1980–81

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Northern RHA

  15,519

  30,835

  28,497

  Cleveland

  74,296

  147,627

  136,430

  Cumbria

  57,163

  113,582

  104,968

  Durham

  73,147

  145,343

  134,320

  Northumberland

  41,055

  81,576

  75,389

  Gateshead

  21,173

  42,072

  38,881

  328

  1980–81

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  84,200

  167,305

  154,616

  North Tyneside

  14,209

  28,234

  26,093

  South Tyneside

  14,814

  29,435

  27,202

  Sunderland

  41,449

  82,359

  76,113

  Northern Region Total

  437,025

  868,368

  802,508

  1981–82

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Northern RHA

  17,042

  31,307

  28,537

  Cleveland

  81,897

  150,446

  137,137

  Cumbria

  62,835

  115,429

  105,218

  Durham

  80,908

  148,627

  135,480

  Northumberland

  45,503

  83,588

  76,194

  Gateshead

  23,263

  42,735

  38,954

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  94,708

  173,978

  158,588

  North Tyneside

  15,748

  28,929

  26,370

  South Tyneside

  16,293

  29,930

  27,282

  Sunderland

  44,473

  81,696

  74,469

  Northern Region Total

  482,670

  886,665

  808,231

  Table

  II Northern Region—revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  1982–83

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Northern RHA

  18,694

  32,247

  29,222

  Hartlepool

  14,038

  24,216

  21,945

  North Tees

  22,658

  39,085

  35,419

  South Tees

  53,150

  91,684

  83,084

  East Cumbria

  29,143

  50,272

  45,557

  South Cumbria

  19,301

  33,295

  30,172

  West Cumbria

  19,048

  32,858

  29,776

  Darlington

  22,746

  39,237

  35,557

  Durham

  26,540

  45,782

  41,488

  North West Durham

  13,552

  23,378

  21,185

  South West Durham

  24,001

  41,401

  37,518

  Northumberland

  48,677

  83,968

  76,092

  Gateshead

  24,973

  43,078

  39,038

  Newcastle

  101,394

  174,905

  158,499

  North Tyneside

  16,984

  29,298

  26,550

  South Tyneside

  17,999

  31,049

  28,136

  Sunderland

  47,938

  82,694

  74,937

  Northern Region Total

  520,838

  898,446

  814,174

  1983–84

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Northern RHA

  19,861

  32,591

  29,672

  Hartlepool

  14,679

  24,089

  21,931

  North Tees

  24,310

  39,893

  36,319

  South Tees

  55,879

  91,698

  83,483

  East Cumbria

  30,842

  50,611

  46,077

  South Cumbria

  20,703

  33,974

  30,930

  West Cumbria

  20,544

  33,713

  30,693

  Darlington

  24,038

  39,446

  35,913

  Durham

  27,338

  44,861

  40,843

  North West Durham

  14,180

  23,269

  21,185

  South West Durham

  25,938

  42,565

  38,752

  329

  1983–84

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Northumberland

  51,771

  84,956

  77,345

  Gateshead

  26,495

  43,478

  39,584

  Newcastle

  108,216

  177,583

  161,675

  North Tyneside

  18,708

  30,700

  27,950

  South Tyneside

  19,061

  31,279

  28,477

  Sunderland

  51,432

  84,400

  76,840

  Northern Region Total

  553,996

  909,107

  827,670

  1984–85

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Northern RHA

  20,834

  32,313

  29,644

  Hartlepool

  15,679

  24,318

  22,309

  North Tees

  25,451

  39,474

  36,214

  South Tees

  58,141

  90,177

  82,729

  East Cumbria

  32,460

  50,346

  46,188

  South Cumbria

  22,894

  35,509

  32,576

  West Cumbria

  21,682

  33,629

  30,852

  Darlington

  25,625

  39,745

  36,462

  Durham

  28,834

  44,721

  41,028

  North West Durham

  15,018

  23,293

  21,369

  South West Durham

  27,584

  42,783

  39,249

  Northumberland

  55,168

  85,566

  78,499

  Gateshead

  28,308

  43,906

  40,280

  Newcastle

  114,164

  177,068

  162,444

  North Tyneside

  20,961

  32,511

  29,826

  South Tyneside

  20,048

  31,095

  28,527

  Sunderland

  54,000

  83,755

  76,837

  Northern Region Total

  586,852

  910,207

  835,031

  1985–86

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Northern RHA

  22,432

  33,064

  30,249

  Hartlepool

  16,980

  25,029

  22,898

  North Tees

  26,751

  39,430

  36,073

  South Tees

  60,693

  89,461

  81,844

  East Cumbria

  34,282

  50,532

  46,229

  South Cumbria

  24,433

  36,015

  32,948

  West Cumbria

  22,998

  33,899

  31,013

  Darlington

  26,771

  39,460

  36,101

  Durham

  29,999

  44,218

  40,453

  North West Durham

  15,713

  23,161

  21,189

  South West Durham

  29,209

  43,054

  39,388

  Northumberland

  57,893

  85,334

  78,068

  Gateshead

  29,795

  43,918

  40,179

  Newcastle

  121,728

  179,427

  164,150

  North Tyneside

  21,950

  32,354

  29,600

  South Tyneside

  20,879

  30,776

  28,155

  Sunderland

  57,580

  84,873

  77,647

  Northern Region Total

  620,085

  914,005

  836,184

  1986–87

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Northern RHA

  22,735

  31,352

  29,681

  Hartlepool

  18,391

  25,361

  24,009

  North Tees

  28,890

  39,840

  37,716

  South Tees

  65,963

  90,963

  86,115

  East Cumbria

  37,270

  51,396

  48,656

  South Cumbria

  26,348

  36,334

  34,397

  330

  1986–87

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  West Cumbria

  24,492

  33,775

  31,975

  Darlington

  28,983

  39,968

  37,838

  Durham

  32,344

  44,602

  42,225

  North West Durham

  16,776

  23,134

  21,901

  South West Durham

  31,230

  43,066

  40,770

  Northumberland

  61,546

  84,872

  80,348

  Gateshead

  32,434

  44,727

  42,343

  Newcastle

  129,754

  178,931

  169,394

  North Tyneside

  23,792

  32,809

  31,060

  South Tyneside

  22,519

  31,054

  29,399

  Sunderland

  61,197

  84,391

  79,893

  Northern Region Total

  664,666

  916,574

  867,721

  1987–88

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Northern RHA

  20,978

  26,663

  25,973

  Hartlepool

  20,888

  26,549

  25,862

  North Tees

  31,895

  40,538

  39,489

  South Tees

  73,203

  93,040

  90,632

  East Cumbria

  40,719

  51,754

  50,414

  South Cumbria

  29,120

  37,011

  36,053

  West Cumbria

  26,753

  34,004

  33,123

  Darlington

  31,4 18

  39,932

  38,899

  Durham

  35,005

  44,491

  43,340

  North West Durham

  18,585

  23,621

  23,010

  South West Durham

  34,224

  43,499

  42,373

  Northumberland

  66,239

  84,190

  82,011

  Gateshead

  34,789

  44,216

  43,072

  Newcastle

  145,364

  184,758

  179,976

  North Tyneside

  25,922

  32,947

  32,094

  South Tyneside

  25,147

  31,962

  31,135

  Sunderland

  66,176

  84,109

  81,932

  Northern Region Total

  726,424

  923,285

  899,386

  1988–89

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Northern RHA

  22,455

  25,823

  25,940

  Hartlepool

  23,529

  27,059

  27,181

  North Tees

  34,304

  39,450

  39,628

  South Tees

  81,915

  94,202

  94,628

  East Cumbria

  45,167

  51,942

  52,177

  South Cumbria

  31,978

  36,774

  36,941

  West Cumbria

  29,434

  33,849

  34,003

  Darlington

  34,595

  39,785

  39,964

  Durham

  37,827

  43,501

  43,698

  North West Durham

  20,946

  24,088

  24,197

  South West Durham

  38,069

  43,780

  43,978

  Northumberland

  73,107

  84,072

  84,453

  Gateshead

  37,737

  43,398

  43,594

  Newcastle

  160,885

  185,018

  185,855

  North Tyneside

  29,409

  33,820

  33,973

  South Tyneside

  27,745

  31,907

  32,051

  Sunderland

  73,559

  84,593

  84,976

  Northern Region Total

  802,662

  923,061

  927,235

  331

  1989–90

  cash £000

  input volume terms £000

  real terms £000

  Northern RHA

  25,813

  27,724

  28,002

  Hartlepool

  26,858

  28,846

  29,136

  North Tees

  37,472

  40,245

  40,649

  South Tees

  86,059

  92,428

  93,357

  East Cumbria

  47,772

  51,307

  51,823

  South Cumbria

  35,090

  37,687

  38,066

  West Cumbria

  31,506

  33,838

  34,178

  Darlington

  37,285

  40,045

  40,447

  Durham

  37,981

  40,791

  41,201

  North West Durham

  22,496

  24,161

  24,404

  South West Durham

  40,337

  43,322

  43,758

  Northumberland

  77,989

  83,760

  84,602

  Gateshead

  40,496

  43,492

  43,930

  Newcastle

  173,702

  186,556

  188,432

  North Tyneside

  31,906

  34,267

  34,611

  South Tyneside

  30,098

  32,325

  32,650

  Sunderland

  79,543

  85,429

  86,288

  Northern Region Total

  862,403

  926,221

  935,535

  1990–91

  Cash £000

  Northern regional health authority

  27,479

  Hartlepool

  28,589

  North Tees

  39,248

  South Tees

  93,727

  East Cumbria

  52,050

  South Cumbria

  38,647

  West Cumbria

  33,314

  Darlington

  39,145

  Durham

  40,698

  North West Durham

  23,812

  South West Durham

  43,169

  Northumberland

  82,563

  Gateshead

  44,040

  Newcastle

  190,898

  North Tyneside

  34,800

  South Tyneside

  33,384

  Sunderland

  85,835

  NORTHERN REGION TOTAL

  931,400

  Notes to the tables:

  1. Expenditure on the HCHS covers services directly managed and/or accounted for by the health authorities (at the relevant time) including hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e. ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  2. The figures are derived from the annual accounts of the regional health authority (RHA) and the area health authorities (district health authorities from 1 April 1982) comprising the Northern region. 1990–91 figures are as yet subject to audit.

  3. The volume input terms column of each table shows the cash figures for the relevant year expressed at 1990–91 prices after adjustment by the HCHS pay and prices index.

  4. The real terms column of each table shows the cash figures for the relevant year expressed in 1990–91 prices after adjustment by the GDP deflator.

  District Nurses
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of whole-time equivalent district nurses employed by each regional health authority in England in 1976, 1981, 1986 and 1991; and if he will list the number of people aged(a) 65 to 74 years, (b) 75 to 84 years and (c) 85 years and above in each of those regional health authorities in each of those years.
  332
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is shown in the tables. Information has been provided for 1990, the latest available year.

  National health service district nurses as at 30 September each year England by regional health authorities1 2

  Whole-time equivalent3

  Region

  41976

  41981

  1986

  1990

  Northern RHA

  930

  1,040

  1,160

  1,160

  Yorkshire RHA

  900

  1,100

  1,110

  1,170

  Trent RHA

  1,230

  1,390

  1,520

  1,610

  East Anglia RHA

  430

  550

  590

  560

  North West Thames RHA

  840

  900

  990

  1,080

  North East Thames RHA

  850

  990

  1,010

  1,180

  South East Thames RHA

  1,020

  1,240

  1,240

  1,210

  South West Thames RHA

  870

  970

  970

  970

  Wessex RHA

  630

  800

  910

  900

  Oxford RHA

  600

  740

  690

  700

  South Western RHA

  740

  930

  970

  1,050

  West Midlands RHA

  1,270

  1,600

  1,570

  1,610

  Mersey RHA

  650

  760

  800

  830

  North Western RHA

  1,300

  1,530

  1,640

  1,730

  London Post Graduate Special Health Authorities

  —

  —

  20

  —

  England Total

  12,270

  14,520

  15,190

  15,740

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  Notes:

  1 Excludes senior nurses grade 1 to 8 and district nurse students. Includes district nurses, district nurse practical work teachers, registered and enrolled nurses assisting district nurses, dual posts (DN/MID) and bank district nurses.

  2 District nurses are defined by occupation code, not by payscale, and the former is known to be less accurate than the latter. Apparent changes in the figures can be due to changes in coding accuracy by health authorities rather than actual changes in numbers of district nurses.

  3 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalent.

  4 Not adjusted for the reduction in nurses working hours during 1980–81. (From 40 to 37·5 per week).

  Estimated resident population at mid 1976 by specific age groups

  Regions

  Ages 65 to 74

  Ages 75 to 84

  Ages 85 +

  Northern

  280,900

  124,600

  26,500

  Yorkshire

  335,500

  153,900

  35,000

  Trent

  403,800

  180,200

  39,400

  East Anglia

  174,000

  82,000

  19,200

  North West Thames

  290,200

  130,100

  32,200

  North East Thames

  345,900

  161,000

  39,400

  South East Thames

  369,400

  183,600

  46,200

  South West Thames

  287,700

  142,700

  35,000

  Wessex

  263,400

  127,200

  30,800

  Oxford

  169,300

  77,600

  19,800

  South Western

  317,400

  152,400

  36,500

  West Midlands

  426,300

  183,000

  39,800

  Mersey

  214,800

  95,900

  22,400

  North Western

  395,100

  177,500

  36,900

  England Total of above

  4,273,700

  1,971,700

  459,100

  Estimated resident population at mid 1981 by specific age groups

  Regions

  Ages 65–74

  Ages 75–84

  Ages 85

  Northern

  280,600

  141,400

  28,700

  Yorkshire

  336,200

  175,900

  38,300

  Trent

  417,500

  208,200

  44,400

  East Anglia

  186,400

  95,800

  22,300

  North West Thames

  295,800

  148,500

  35,100

  North East Thames

  343,900

  177,900

  41,400

  South East Thames

  365,700

  201,700

  50,000

  South West Thames

  290,600

  160,600

  41,200

  Wessex

  277,100

  148,900

  35,900

  333

  Regions

  Ages 65–74

  Ages 75–84

  Ages 85+

  Oxford

  179,600

  91,300

  22,100

  South Western

  324,900

  175,800

  41,800

  West Midlands

  444,700

  215,000

  44,400

  Mersey

  218,000

  109,100

  24,200

  North Western

  385,900

  199,400

  41,500

  England Total of above

  4,346,900

  2,249,500

  511,300

  Estimated resident population at mid 1986 by specific age groups

  Regions

  Ages 65–74

  Ages 75–84

  Ages 85+

  Northern

  275,850

  153,972

  34,078

  Yorkshire

  318,712

  190,983

  45,814

  Trent

  409,487

  234,720

  52,845

  East Anglia

  184,677

  111,166

  26,778

  North West Thames

  280,787

  167,878

  41,446

  North East Thames

  324,917

  196,496

  49,125

  South East Thames

  345,563

  219,139

  57,300

  South West Thames

  271,871

  176,387

  47,134

  Wessex

  272,400

  169,716

  43,431

  Oxford

  183,335

  105,317

  25,674

  South Western

  316,377

  197,864

  50,795

  West Midlands

  443,004

  244,492

  52,874

  Mersey

  208,230

  120,169

  28,093

  North Western

  355,377

  212,740

  47,896

  England Total of above

  4,190,587

  2,501,039

  603,283

  Estimated resident population at mid 1990 by specific age groups

  Regions

  Ages 65–74

  Ages 75–84

  Ages 85+

  Northern

  277,958

  161,846

  42,403

  Yorkshire

  318,247

  197,925

  56,402

  Trent

  413,706

  250,066

  66,169

  East Anglia

  192,253

  120,299

  33,157

  North West Thames

  274,194

  175,423

  51,287

  North East Thames

  315,389

  203,596

  60,283

  South East Thames

  337,186

  224,073

  67,441

  South West Thames

  265,750

  181,378

  55,349

  Wessex

  276,733

  180,540

  52,715

  Oxford

  193,123

  115,630

  30,965

  South Western

  319,189

  209,108

  62,499

  West Midlands

  450,453

  263,646

  67,158

  Mersey

  207,747

  125,358

  34,691

  North Western

  345,647

  215,792

  59,017

  England Total of above

  4,187,575

  2,624,680

  739,536

  Fresh Fruit
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 275, if he will specify the various considerations that led the 1989 Committee on Medical Aspects of Food panel on dietary sugars and human disease to classify fresh fruit, as eaten by humans, as intrinsic sugars.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The panel found that the physical location of sugars influences their availability for bacterial metabolism in the mouth and the readiness with which they are absorbed after ingestion. For that reason they considered it would be helpful to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic sugars. They defined intrinsic sugars as being those which form an integral part of certain unprocessed foodstuffs, and which are enclosed in the cell of the food. The sugars present naturally in fresh fruit and vegetables (mainly fructose, glucose and sucrose) fall within that definition.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what position he will adopt concerning the proposed ban on tobacco advertising throughout the European Community when it comes before the Council of Ministers in May; in reaching his decision, what weight he will attach to the opinion of the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have noted the opinion of the European Parliament. When the proposal comes to the Health Council, the Government will maintain their position that the proposed directive is unnecessary for the completion of the single market.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department collects individual case histories of patients who have been waiting for over two years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to apply the Disqualification for Caring for Children Regulations 1991 to the local authority sector.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no intention of doing so. Although the Disqualification for Caring for Children Regulations do not apply to the local authority sector, volume 8 of the Children Act regulations and guidance series advises that local authorities should have regard to the regulations when considering the appointment of staff to any children's services run by the local authority, and when assessing people's suitability to work as childminders or foster parents employed by a local authority.

  In addition, volumes 2—"Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children", 3—"Family Placements" and 4—"Residential Care" in the Children Act series contain clear guidance on the requirement for local authorities to undertake a thorough assessment of the suitability of people who wish to work with children in any service run by the local authority. Compliance will ensure that equivalent measures exist for safeguarding the welfare of children cared for in the local authority sector as those in the private and voluntary sectors.

  General Whitley Council
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his decision to revoke the appeals procedure for national health service employees, General Whitley Council, section 32.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 19 February at columns 206–7.

  National Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish table 3 of Cm 1913 adjusted for input unit costs.
  335
  Mr. Dorrell
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 February 1992 112–14.]: I regret that there was an error in the table. The last two columns of the table were incorrectly calculated. A revised table is as follows.

  Expenditure figures as they appear in table 3 of Cm 1913 adjusted for changes in input costs and by the GDP deflator (all at 1990–91 prices)

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  NHS hospital, community health, family health (cash limited) and related services

  Current expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  Gross

  14,977

  15,251

  15,311

  15,329

  16,081

  1—

  1—

  Net

  14,540

  14,818

  14,876

  14,873

  15,590

  1—

  1—

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  Gross

  14,178

  14,857

  15,377

  15,483

  16,081

  17,405

  18,380

  Net

  13,764

  14,434

  14,940

  15,022

  15,590

  16,950

  17,967

  Capital expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  Gross

  1,423

  1,425

  1,450

  1,591

  1,555

  1—

  1—

  Net

  1,221

  1,166

  1,110

  1,332

  1,377

  1—

  1—

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  Gross

  1,372

  1,369

  1,376

  1,548

  1,555

  1,536

  1,368

  Net

  1,178

  1,121

  1,054

  1,296

  1,377

  1,338

  1,189

  NHS family health services (non cash limited) current/total expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  Gross

  5,146

  5,323

  5,489

  5,470

  5,304

  1—

  1—

  Net

  4,593

  4,763

  4,891

  4,807

  4,690

  1—

  1—

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  Gross

  4,740

  4,976

  5,261

  5,219

  5,304

  5,293

  5,524

  Net

  4,231

  4,452

  4,688

  4,587

  4,690

  4,673

  4,888

  Total health services

  Current expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  Gross

  20,777

  21,223

  21,400

  21,436

  22,01

  1—

  1—

  Net

  19,774

  20,218

  20,364

  20,317

  20,88

  1—

  1—

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  Gross

  19,524

  20,446

  21,216

  21,314

  22,017

  23,414

  24,641

  Net

  18,581

  19,477

  20,189

  20,201

  20,889

  22,310

  23,559

  Capital expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  Gross

  1,474

  1,454

  1,487

  1,621

  1,603

  1—

  1—

  Net

  1,273

  1,193

  1,121

  1,361

  1,425

  1—

  1—

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  Gross

  1,422

  1,398

  1,411

  1,577

  1,603

  1,686

  1,529

  Net

  1,227

  1,147

  1,064

  1,325

  1,425

  1,423

  1,350

  Total expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  Gross

  22,271

  22,696

  22,908

  23,064

  23,62

  1—

  1—

  Net

  21,061

  21,429

  21,517

  21,688

  22,314

  1—

  1—

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  Gross

  20,945

  21,843

  22,628

  22,891

  23,620

  25,100

  26,170

  Net

  19,808

  20,624

  21,253

  21,526

  22,314

  23,734

  24,909

  1 Estimates are not made for changes in input unit cost until the financial year has ended.

ENVIRONMENT

  Fair Rents
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that fair rents for regulated tenants in private properties are based on the same valuation as that made for council tax.

  Mr. Yeo
  None. Fair rents are not based on the capital values of property with vacant possession, but are determined according to the rules set out in section 70 of 336
  the Rent Act 1977. The valuation bands to be used for council tax purposes are not suitable for setting rents. We have no plans to change the way in which fair rents are set for regulated tenancies.

  Planning Advice
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now bring forward regulations under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing
  337
  Act 1989 to enable local authorities to recover their costs in providing pre-planning application advice and other related services.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department encourages local authorities to discuss development proposals with applicants before a planning application is submitted. The implications of the recent judgment of the House of Lords that local authorities may not charge for this service are being studied.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are proposing to take to ensure the eradication of the production of ozone-depleting chemicals at the earliest possible date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are committed to phasing out CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform within the United Kingdom by the end of 1995 at the latest. Both United Kingdom producers will cease production of these substances no later than that date. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to the president of the EC Environment Council, urging the Community to adopt the strongest possible position in the negotiations towards the revision of the Montreal protocol, which will begin in April.

  Development Plans
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to replace the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) (England) Direction 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have today sent to all local planning authorities in England a copy of the Town and Country Planning Development Plans (England) Direction 1992 which comes into effect on 28 February. This replaces the 1981 direction.

  The new direction will require authorities to advertise in a local newspaper all applications not in accordance with the development plan and which they do not propose to refuse. This gives the local community the opportunity to comment on and object to such applications; and to ask my right hon. Friend to call them in.

  Authorities must also report to my right hon. Friend all such applications which are for major development or which otherwise threaten important policies in the plan. This will enable my right hon. Friend to be aware of significant divergences from the development plan and to consider whether he wishes to call in such applications for his determination. It remains his policy that in general applications will be called in only where planning issues of more than local importance are involved.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is issuing a similar direction to Welsh local planning authorities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make it his practice to provide information about the levels of Export Credits Guarantee Department insurance cover for individual overseas defence sales.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to publish details of ECGD cover for individual sales contracts unless all the commercial parties agree.

  Advanced Technology Programme
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on what plans he has to announce any further assistance under the advanced technology programme.

  Mr. Lilley
  Yes. I have approved a £15 million collaborative research advanced technology programme for tracked-transport systems aimed at stimulating R and D expenditure to the end of the century.

  This initiative will help United Kingdom firms to gain a greater share of new opportunities in tracked-transport arising out of increasing public concern for the environment and recent advances in new technology.

  There will be close co-operation between my Department and the Department of Transport and the programme will be fully in line with the priority given to the railways by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in his statement on 28 May 1991.

  The opening of the channel fixed link and the completion of the single European market including the move to freer public purchasing will present further opportunities.

  Hong Kong (Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in November 1989, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: I understand that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) did not visit Hong Kong in November 1989.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Julie Ward
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Attorney General of Kenya during his visit to London the matter of Julie Ward's killing in that country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Two Kenyan rangers have been accused of the murder of Julie Ward, and the case is currently sub-judice. It would not therefore be appropriate to raise any substantive points about the case at this stage. The high commission is in touch with the Attorney-General's office in Nairobi about the arrangements for the trial, which we shall be following with the closest attention.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits have been made by Overseas Development Agency and Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff to the Commonwealth of Independent States in connection with aid matters in the last year; and at what approximate cost.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 21 February 1991 there have been 14 visits to the former Soviet Union in connection with aid matters involving a total of 19 ODA and FCO staff, some of whom have visited more than once. The approximate cost—airfares and local expenses not met by the host authorities—was £63,000.

  Francisco Javier Perez Egert
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deny diplomatic status to Francisco Javier Perez Egert, recently appointed as military attaché to the Chilean embassy in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Francisco Javier Perez Egert has not been notified to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a member of staff of the Chilean embassy and has not been accepted or received as such.

DEFENCE

  Beagle Packs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has to license beagle packs to use land owned, operated or leased by his Department; and if he will list the beagle packs that have such licences.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Two beagle packs have licences to hunt on Ministry of Defence land. These are the Glyn Celyn beagles and the Catterick beagles. The licences to these packs are negotiated by the Defence land agent taking into account the particular requirements of the Defence establishment concerned.

  Five other beagle packs have access to Ministry of Defence land under other arrangements.

  Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the terms of reference of the Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee.

  Ministry of Defence industrial civil servants

  Full-time equivalents

  Area

  1 July 1987

  1 July 1988

  1 July 1989

  1 July 1990

  1 July 1991

  South East

  18,896·0

  17,449·0

  16,093·5

  15,661 0

  15,379·0

  East Anglia

  1,092·5

  1,087·5

  1,022·0

  997·0

  934·5

  South West

  10,711·5

  10,286·0

  10,002·5

  9,748·0

  9,456·5

  West Midlands

  4,432·0

  4,249·0

  4,177·0

  4,145·5

  4,021·5

  East Midlands

  1,986·0

  1,789·0

  1,614·0

  1,428·5

  1,599·5

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  2,355·5

  2,185·0

  2,013·0

  2,043·5

  1,801·5

  North West

  636·0

  599·0

  576·5

  567·5

  552·5

  Northern

  1,605·0

  1,582·5

  1,566·0

  1,569·0

  1,506·5

  Wales

  3,465·0

  3,130·5

  3,102·5

  3,030·0

  3,030·5

  Scotland

  5,929·0

  5,852·0

  5,713·5

  5,581·5

  5,393·0

  Northern Ireland

  1,761·0

  1,785·0

  1,818·0

  1,798·0

  1,748·5

  Inner London

  566·0

  479·0

  444·5

  485·0

  483·0

  Intermediate London

  1,025·0

  863·5

  822·5

  713·5

  748·0

  Outer London

  1,678·0

  1,506·5

  1,406·0

  1,412·5

  1,241·5

  Elsewhere in United Kingdom

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  2·0

  340
  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not our practice to make these terms of reference public, but I will consider further whether I could help the hon. Gentleman.

  HMS Revenge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date HMS Revenge started its current commission.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Revenge began its present commission in January 1983.

  Civilian Employees
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of civilians employed by his Department for each of the years 1980 to 1992.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  1980

  218,026

  1981

  208,761

  1982

  197,491

  1983

  190,334

  1984

  181,183

  1985

  174,077

  1986

  169,462

  1987

  164,002

  1988

  143,394

  1989

  141,317

  1990

  141,372

  1991

  140,199

  1992

  140,024

  The figures are based on the total number of MOD civilians in post at 1 April each year with the exception of that for 1992 which relates to 1 January.

  Industrial Workers
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed in the industrial sector by his Department at each location for 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is as follows:
  341

  Area

  1 July 1987

  1 July 1988

  1 July 1989

  1 July 1990

  1 July 1991

  At sea and RFA

  1,343·0

  1,512·0

  1,565·0

  1,552·0

  1,685·0

  Overseas

  10·0

  10·0

  11·0

  23·0

  24·0

  Not allocated

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  MOD TOTAL

  57,492·5

  54,366·5

  51,948·5

  50,757·5

  49,608·0

  Flight Safety
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of co-ordination of research effort in matters of flight safety.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence co-operates closely with the civil aviation community and international aviation authorities on matters of flight safety, including research, and will continue to do so in the future.

  HMS Green Rover
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the sale of HMS Green Rover to Indonesia.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the consistent policy of successive Governments not to discuss particulars of defence contracts with other countries since these are matters of commercial confidentiality.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Newbury can expect answers to his letter of 13 December, to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Arran, and to his letters of 20 December and 3 February to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, relating to RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write very shortly to my hon. Friend in response to his letters on 16 and 20 December and 3 February.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Written Answers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the three most expensive answers for which calculations have already been made to parliamentary written questions since 1987.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

SCOTLAND

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the new Scottish food hygiene regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Formal consultations were held last year on proposals to introduce statutory temperature 342
  controls for certain foodstuffs. In the light of the responses received, we have more recently had discussions with representatives of trade interests and with local authorities who would be responsible for enforcement. We are considering the issues which have been raised, and will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has given to schemes prepared by Scottish bus companies supported by regional councils following the publication of "Buses Mean Business"; and whether the Scottish schemes will be funded on a similar basis to English ones.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I support the aims of the "Buses Mean business" campaign in Scotland. For this reason, regional and islands councils have been invited to treat bus priority measures as a special objective in their financial plans on which capital allocations are based. The arrangements for central Government support for local authority transport expenditure in Scotland are different from those in England.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the change in the number of beds in NHS mental hospitals in every year since 1977 in absolute and percentage terms; and the number of day centre places opened in the same period.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information on psychiatric beds is shown in the table. Information on numbers of day patient places, opened is not centrally available.

  National Health Service hospitals in Scotland_psychiatric specialties average available staffed beds; absolute and percentage change from previous year; years ending 31 March

  Change from previous year

  Absolute

  Percentage

  1977

  -522

  -2·8

  1978

  -343

  -1·9

  1979

  -46

  -0·3

  1980

  -364

  -2·1

  1981

  -215

  -1·3

  1982

  -188

  -1·1

  1983

  -196

  -1·2

  1984

  -125

  -0·8

  1985

  19

  0·1

  1986

  -266

  -1·6

  1987

  -377

  -2·3

  1988

  -312

  -2·0

  1989

  -535

  -3·5

  1990

  -566

  -3·8

  1991

  -479

  -3·3

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the arrangements made for(a) the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and (b) the Plasma Fractionation Centre in connection with the transitional arrangements covering removal of Crown immunity status consequent upon the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following the removal of Crown immunity status from health bodies under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS) and the protein fractionation centre (PFC) were required to apply to the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) for pharmaceutical manufacturer's licence and product licences in order to comply with the legislation. However, the granting of licences by the MCA is an extensive process and in order to ensure continuity of clinical and pharmaceutical services special provisions were made under the Act for transitional arrangements to allow the SNBTS and PFC to continue to operate. Under these arrangements the SNBTS was required to submit all new licence applications and resubmit existing licences held by 31 March 1991. This has been completed.

  The PFC has been granted a manufacturing licence and also a number of product licences have been obtained. A group of product licences previously held under the arrangements prior to the removal of Crown immunity are still being processed by the MCA but it is expected that new licences will be obtained shortly.

  Constituencies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the six highest and six lowest numbers of electors in parliamentary constituencies in Scotland; and what is the average constituency electorate in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest information available relates to the 1991 register of electors, when the average electorate was 54,369, and is as follows:

  Highest parliamentary constituency electorates

  Number

  Gordon

  78,438

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  68,848

  East Lothian

  67,223

  Ayr

  66,126

  Kincardine and Deeside

  65,660

  Perth and Kinross

  65,135

  Lowest parliamentary constituency electorates

  Number

  Western Isles

  23,073

  Caithness and Sutherland

  31,120

  Orkney and Shetland

  31,355

  Glasgow, Provan

  37,838

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  39,608

  Glasgow, Central

  42,270

  Traffic, Dairsie
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the results of all traffic surveys his Department has carried out at Dairsie in the last 10 years for which information is available.
  344
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Classified traffic counts are carried out at a location on the A91 west of Dairsie at six-yearly intervals. The results of those carried out on the last two counts were:

  14 October 1980 5,782 vehicles from 7 am to 7 pm.

  14 October 1986 6,438 vehicles from 7 am to 7 pm.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors influenced his decision in 1991 not to build a bypass round Dairsie.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The resources available for road building schemes are limited and therefore choices have to be made between the numerous schemes competing for the available funding. Before a feasibility study is carried out, it is necessary to ensure that the benefits arising from a scheme would justify the capital expenditure. In the case of a bypass of Dairsie such an evaluation indicated that this criterion could not be met.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations have caused him to conclude that a controlled pedestrian crossing at Dairsie is not justified.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Counts of pedestrian and vehicular movements on the A91 within Dairsie indicated that the combined movements were less than one quarter of the figure required to justify the provision of a pedestrian crossing.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will institute traffic-calming measures to reduce the speed of vehicles travelling through Dairsie.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Measures to reduce the speed of traffic through Dairsie have already been introduced and further measures are planned for later this year.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct a fresh survey of traffic at Dairsie to determine whether a bypass is justified.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Classified traffic counts are undertaken on a six-yearly cycle at predetermined census points throughout the United Kingdom.

  One such census point is located just west of Dairsie and is representative of the traffic flows within the village. The next count at this location is planned for October this year from which it will be possible to determine whether further consideration of a bypass of Dairsie is justified.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in support of a controlled pedestrian crossing at Dairsie; and from whom.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of 64 individual letters have been received from residents of Dairsie supporting the installation of a pelican crossing. In addition two petitions containing in total 266 signatures, including 38 from primary school children, have been received. Some of the signatories to the petitions also wrote individually and are therefore included in both totals.

  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the criteria which his Department uses when deciding whether a controlled pedestrian crossing is justified.
  345
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The criteria for establishing pedestrian crossings are contained in "Technical Memorandum SH 7/87", published by the Scottish Office in February 1987. A copy of this memorandum has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number and locations of the controlled pedestrian crossings which his Department has approved in(a) Scotland, (b) Fife and (c) north-east Fife in the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of pelican crossings currently on trunk roads which have been authorised by the Secretary of State are given in the table. Some of these crossings will have been authorised longer ago than 10 years. Other crossings, originally authorised by the Secretary of State on trunk roads, are not included in the table because the roads concerned are no longer classified as trunk roads.

  Pelican crossings on trunk roads

  Number

  Fife

  North East Fife

  3

  Elsewhere

  3

  Borders

  5

  Central

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  Grampian

  8

  Highland

  2

  Lothian

  2

  Strathclyde

  20

  Tayside

  0

  All Scotland

  48

  Bypasses
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bypasses his Department has funded in(a) Scotland, (b) Fife and (c) north-east Fife in the last 10 years for which information is available; and what sums have been spent in doing so.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures requested are as follows:

  (a) 38 bypasses at a cost of £373 million,

  (b) 1 bypass at a cost of £3·4 million,

  (c) none.

  These figures exclude the construction of the £40 million east Fife regional road which effectively bypassed many towns and villages in central Fife.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the criteria his Department uses in determining whether a bypass should be built.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Many factors are used in determining the need for a bypass and the relative priority of these varies depending on local circumstances. Criteria include: traffic flow and composition such as the percentages of heavy goods vehicles and the proportion of through traffic; safety considerations for vehicles and pedestrians; environmental factors such as noise benefits to residential or commercial properties; the feasibility and economic viability of a bypass route; and the relationship to local and national development plans and transport strategy.

  Bankruptcies
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year for which figures are available the names of the 20 trustees in Scotland who received the largest aggregate total sum for work carried out under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and for each of the top 20 the sum received in each year; if he will state in respect of each year, for cases where the final outcome is known, the fees paid to trustees in sequestrations which have exceeded 50 per cent. of the total debt; in how many cases the block fee system was(a) applied or (b) disapplied in each year; and in how many cases each year since 1985 there has been any dividend paid to unsecured ordinary creditors.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: (i) The 20 insolvency practitioners who received the largest aggregate payments and the amounts paid are shown in the table:

  Name of trustee

  Firm/Office

  Payments made from public funds £

  1987

  R. S. MacGregor

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  35,477.11

  G. I. Rankin

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Glasgow

  18,668.98

  N. J. McNeill

  BDO Binder Hamlyn, Glasgow

  12,968.09

  P. C. Taylor

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Edinburgh

  10,924.72

  R. B. M. Graham

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  10,916.44

  D. I. Turner

  Ernst and Young, Glasgow

  10,852.22

  D. J. Watt

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  8,124.95

  0. I. Balfour

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Aberdeen

  7,008.66

  G. Ritchie

  Ernst and Young, Edinburgh

  7,998.81

  A. S. Gray

  Peat Marwick McLintock, Glasgow

  6,679.63

  J. D. Laurie

  cork Gully, Edinburgh

  6,347.80

  R. E. Blin

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  5,430.22

  J. C. Pringle

  J. C. Pringle and Co., Inverness

  4,782.46

  A. C. Thomson

  Thomson Cooper and Co., Dunfermline

  3,865.47

  C. A. F. Hastings

  Hastings and Co., Glasgow

  3,753.75

  R. C. Wallace

  Wallace and Co., Hamilton

  3,162.50

  B. A. Jackson

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  3,008.55

  A. I. Armstrong

  Grainger and Co., Glasgow

  2,901.95

  P. L. Stewart

  Peat Marwick McLintock, Glasgow

  2,569.60

  P. J. Campbell

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  22,555.36

  1988

  R. S. MacGregor

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  169,801.05

  0. L. Balfour

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Aberdeen

  101,178.60

  D. B. Jackson

  Douglas Laing and Jackson, Glasgow

  82,602.91

  R. B. Graham

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  73,565.60

  C. A. F. Hastings

  C. A. F. Hastings and Co, Glasgow

  69,256.07

  J. C. J. Readman

  Ernst and Young, Glasgow

  53,376.04

  P. C. Taylor

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Edinburgh

  47,813.63

  J. D. Laurie

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  47,113.15

  G. I. Rankin

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Glasgow

  42,943.90

  F. Blin

  Cork Gully, Glasgow

  33,764.26

  A. S. Gray

  Peat Marwick McLintock, Glasgow

  27,448.21

  347

  Name of trustee

  Firm/Office

  Payments made from public funds £

  B. A. Jackson

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  24,433·13

  A. Amoore

  Peat Marwick McLintock, Aberdeen

  23,406·52

  R. A. Johnson

  Cork Gully, Glasgow

  22,204·69

  N. Robinson

  Kidsons Impey, Glasgow

  21,699·32

  K. A. Ross

  Kenneth Ross and Sharkey, Glasgow

  21,468·72

  W. Hecht

  F L Walker and Co, Glasgow

  19,886·25

  T. Dyer

  Scott Oswald and Co, Dundee

  18,914·64

  T. P. C. Taylor

  Spicer Oppenheim, Glasgow

  18,518·03

  P. J. Campbell

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  18,094·42

  1989

  R. S. MacGregor

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  940,219·67

  P. J. Campbell

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  363,305·17

  J. C. J. Readman

  Ernst and Young, Glasgow

  267,649·68

  B. A. Jackson

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  267,371·11

  O. L. Balfour

  Cork Gully, Aberdeen

  253,747·66

  P. C. Taylor

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  200,849·57

  R. B. M. Graham

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  169,909·08

  C. A. F. Hastings

  Hastings and Co., Glasgow

  162,639·78

  W. T. M. Cleghorn

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  145,561·02

  G. I. Rankin

  Cork Gully, Glasgow

  137,441·84

  A. S. Gray

  Peat Marwick McLintock, Glasgow

  123,481·09

  D. B. Jackson

  Douglas Laing and Jackson, Glasgow

  118,239·72

  K. A. Ross

  Kenneth Ross and Sharkey, Glasgow

  110,450·79

  J. D. Laurie

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  110,306·12

  R. E. Blin

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  102,468·64

  T. Dyer

  Scott Oswald and Co., Dundee

  77,962·79

  G. Ritchie

  Ernst and Young, Edinburgh

  61,618·00

  A. Amoore

  Peat Marwick McLintock, Aberdeen

  52,675·43

  N. Robinson

  Kidsons Impey, Glasgow

  47,535·77

  W. Hecht

  F. L. Walker and Co., Glasgow

  38,486·43

  1990

  R. S. MacGregor

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  1,649·996·80

  N. Robinson

  Kidson Impey, Glasgow

  664,389·06

  J. C. J. Readman

  Ernst and Young, Glasgow

  651,547·69

  P. J. Campbell

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  454,322·46

  B. A. Jackson

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  436,609·84

  C. A. F. Hastings

  Hastings and Co., Glasgow

  401,615·46

  N. J. McNeill

  BDO Binder Hamlyn, Glasgow

  245,562·04

  O. L. Balfouar

  Cork Gully, Aberdeen

  211,310·41

  P. C. Taylor

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  204,758·15

  F. Blin

  Cork Gully, Glasgow

  181,825·24

  A. W. O'Boyle

  F L Walker, Glasgow

  170,686·55

  G. Ritchie

  Ernst and Young, Edinburgh

  163,361·81

  R. E. Blin

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  150,245·16

  G. I. Rankin

  Cork Gully, Glasgow

  147,425·87

  W. T. M. Cleghorn

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  139,235·54

  N. M. Sharp

  Ernst and Young, Aberdeen

  136,767·95

  R. B. M. Graham

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  124,492·96

  W. Hecht

  F L Walker, Glasgow

  120,201·78

  D. B. Jackson

  Douglas Laing and Jackson, Glasgow

  103,547·39

  D. H. Beedie

  Ernst and Young, Dundee

  100,676·45

  1991

  R. S MacGregor

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  2,217,113·44

  N. Robinson

  Kindsons Impey, Glasgow

  1,232,632·10

  J. C. J Readman

  Ernst and Young, Glasgow

  1,217,222·00

  348

  Name of trustee

  Firm/Office

  Payments made from public funds £

  C. K. Russell

  Kidsons Impey, Glasgow

  642,390·93

  B. Jackson

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  625,631·25

  P. J. Campbell

  Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  585,341·66

  G. Ritchie

  Ernst and Young, Edinburgh

  541,501·81

  C. A. F. Hastings

  Hastings and Co, Glasgow

  493,208·22

  P. C. Taylor

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  354,351·58

  J. D. Laurie

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  337,315·45

  G. I. Rankin

  Cork Gully, Glasgow

  299,835·95

  O. L. Balfour

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  287,910·66

  F. Blin

  Cork Gully, Glasgow

  267,467·30

  A O'Boyle

  F. L. Walker, Glasgow

  254,850·18

  N. M. Sharp

  Ernst and Young, Aberdeen

  236,039·25

  N. J. McNeill

  BDO Binder Hamlyn, Glasgow

  232,461·89

  W. T. M. Cleghorn

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  231,691·42

  D. H. Beedie

  Ernst and Young, Dundee

  214,440·89

  R. B. M. Graham

  Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  166,954·11

  W. Hecht

  F. L. Walker, Glasgow

  129,101·74

  (ii) In those cases where the final outcome is known, payments to trustees have exceeded 50 per cent. of the total debt in the following number of cases:

  Year

  Number of Cases

  1986

  None

  1987

  None

  1988

  None

  1989

  3

  1990

  31

  (iii) The block fee system of remuneration for trustees was introduced on 1 October 1990 and applied only to awards of sequestration made on or after that date ie where the first accounting period ended on or after 1 April 1991. In the period 1 October 1990 to 30 September 1991 there were 6,965 awards of sequestration. Of these, in 175 cases the trustee was elected and the provisions of the block fees scheme did not therefore apply and in a further 174 cases the block fee was disapplied. In the balance of 6,616 cases the trustees were remunerated under the block fee arrangement.

  (iv) In sequestration under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 dividends were paid to ordinary creditors as follows:

  Year

  Number of Cases

  1985

  Not applicable

  1986

  None

  1987

  None

  1988

  None

  1989

  4

  1990

  11

  Trustees
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the number of awards of sequestration made and (b) the total gross payments in respect of trustees' funds and refunded to trustees for each year since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The number of awards of sequestration made since 1985 was as follows:
  349

  Year

  Number of awards

  1985

  295

  1986

  437

  1987

  834

  1988

  1,457

  1989

  2,344

  1990

  4,364

  1991

  7,782

  Gross payments to trustees ie including outlays, statutory fees, remuneration and VAT, but excluding recoveries, were as follows:

  Financial year

  Gross payments (£000s)

  1985–86

  Nil

  1986–87

  13

  1987–88

  418

  Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985

  Sequestrations awarded in each sheriff court 1985–89

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Glasgow

  46

  99

  186

  302

  509

  1,032

  Edinburgh

  56

  78

  139

  197

  360

  792

  Duns

  1

  5

  10

  9

  28

  24

  Haddington

  13

  16

  17

  21

  87

  166

  Jedburgh

  4

  7

  10

  17

  24

  83

  Linlithgow

  11

  30

  72

  63

  171

  273

  Peebles

  0

  0

  5

  3

  11

  30

  Selkirk

  3

  8

  9

  10

  39

  58

  Campbeltown

  0

  2

  4

  6

  13

  18

  Dumbarton

  8

  17

  28

  52

  92

  174

  Dunoon

  1

  5

  6

  18

  19

  29

  Greenock

  3

  13

  30

  25

  62

  72

  Kilmarnock

  12

  31

  43

  111

  209

  386

  Oban

  1

  3

  5

  10

  15

  26

  Paisley

  12

  27

  35

  83

  146

  229

  Rothesay

  1

  2

  5

  8

  10

  4

  Airdrie

  9

  18

  44

  60

  149

  396

  Ayr

  12

  32

  35

  84

  204

  273

  Dumfries

  5

  22

  13

  30

  85

  112

  Hamilton

  26

  43

  54

  101

  233

  457

  Kirkcudbright

  4

  5

  4

  9

  32

  33

  Lanark

  7

  13

  18

  20

  30

  62

  Stranraer

  2

  9

  10

  8

  9

  27

  Alloa

  6

  9

  5

  24

  66

  73

  Arbroath

  5

  5

  10

  33

  43

  43

  Cupar

  6

  13

  19

  36

  43

  73

  Dundee

  3

  28

  65

  85

  87

  112

  Dunfermline

  10

  23

  33

  84

  209

  494

  Falkirk

  6

  14

  31

  163

  299

  527

  Forfar

  3

  7

  10

  12

  26

  34

  Kirkcaldy

  21

  16

  68

  136

  336

  593

  Perth

  9

  20

  29

  28

  70

  127

  Stirling

  5

  15

  20

  31

  145

  160

  Aberdeen

  30

  73

  173

  233

  200

  268

  Banff

  1

  3

  12

  9

  13

  34

  Dingwall

  3

  10

  9

  15

  20

  30

  Dornoch

  0

  2

  6

  2

  9

  10

  Elgin

  4

  19

  31

  49

  84

  116

  Fort William

  1

  4

  5

  2

  9

  32

  Inverness

  2

  17

  35

  37

  51

  107

  Kirkwall

  2

  11

  4

  5

  3

  18

  Lerwick

  1

  1

  3

  3

  6

  16

  Lochmaddy

  1

  0

  1

  5

  2

  1

  Portree

  1

  3

  2

  1

  8

  13

  Stnehaven

  2

  9

  27

  25

  39

  41

  Stornoway

  0

  14

  5

  1

  4

  7

  Tain

  3

  7

  4

  12

  11

  27

  Wick

  1

  5

  2

  3

  6

  15

  350

  Financial year

  Gross payments (£000s)

  1988–89

  2,415

  1989–90

  6,390

  1990–91

  10,880

  Sequestrations
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sequestrations were awarded in each sheriff court for each year since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Since 1 April 1986 when the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 came into effect awards in each sheriff court have been as follows:
  351
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1989 the names of the 10 trustees who were most frequently appointed in sequestrations, and for each year the number of cases to which each was appointed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Following the coming into effect on 1 April 1986 of the provisions of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 the staffing levels and administration costs of the office of the accountant in bankruptcy have been as follows:

  Average number of staff

  Administration costs (£)

  1986–87

  6

  73,000

  1987–88

  9

  94,000

  1988–89

  15

  221,000

  1989–90

  26

  400,000

  1990–91

  38

  730,000

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since commencement of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 the number of employees and the total cost of the administration of the Account of Bankruptcies office.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  Permanent trustee

  Number of cases

  1989

  R. S. MacGregor, Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  383

  J. C. J. Readman, Ernst and Young, Glasgow

  244

  B. A. Jackson, Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  209

  N. Robinson, Kidsons Impey, Glasgow

  177

  P. J. Campbell, Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  162

  N. M. Sharp, Ernst and Young, Aberdeen

  55

  N. J. McNeil, BDO, Binder Hamlyn, Glasgow

  55

  C. A. F. Hastings, Hastings and Co., Glasgow

  48

  A. W. O'Boyle, F. L. Walker, Glasgow

  44

  G. Ritchie, Ernst and Young, Edinburgh

  41

  1990

  N. Robinson, Kidsons Impey, Glasgow

  899

  R. S. MacGregor, Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  510

  B. A. Jackson, Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  451

  J. C. J. Readman, Ernst and Young, Glasgow

  446

  P. J. Campbell, Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  302

  G. Ritchie, Ernst and Young, Edinburgh

  265

  C. K. Russell, Kidsons Impey, Glasgow

  244

  J. D. Laurie, Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  150

  N. J. McNeil, BDO, Glasgow

  105

  G. I. Rankin, Cork Gully, Glasgow

  86

  1991

  B. A. Jackson, Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  722

  J. C. J. Readman, Ernst and Young, Glasgow

  690

  N. Robinson, Kidsons Impey, Glasgow

  587

  R. S. MacGregor, Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  570

  C. K. Russell, Kidsons Impey, Glasgow

  512

  J. D. Laurie, Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  486

  G. Ritchie, Ernst and Young, Edinburgh

  364

  C. A. F. Hastings, Hastings and Co., Glasgow

  240

  G. I. Rankin, Cork Gully, Glasgow

  173

  A. C. Thomson, Thomson and Co., Dunfermline

  159

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what comparative data he has on participation rates of young people in further and higher education including(a) numbers achieving higher education entry qualifications, (b) numbers entering higher education, (c) numbers entering higher and further education, (d) numbers with no qualifications when leaving school and (e) numbers entering work with no training, in Scotland and other EC and OECD nations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: I shall write to the hon. Member. A copy of my reply will be placed in the House Library.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Doran
  To asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the number of nursing and midwifery staff, including temporary agency staff, in the health service in Scotland on 1 January 1986; and what was the corresponding figure on 1 September 1991;

  (2) what was the number of administrative and clerical staff in the health service in Scotland on 1 January 1986; and what was the corresponding figure for 1 September 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: This information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of staff graded as general or senior managers in the health service in Scotland on 1 January 1986; and what was the corresponding number on 1 September 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: As at 1 January 1986, the term "general manager" was applied only to the most senior officer in each health board. Since that date it has been extended to other management posts. The term "senior manager" has been progressively introduced into the NHS in Scotland from 22 December 1987 when new arrangements for the remuneration and conditions of service of persons employed in a range of senior management posts came into operation.

  Nurses
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has in respect of each health board in Scotland regarding(a) the number of enrolled nurses currently employed by the health board and (b) the number of enrolled nurses who are currently engaged in an enrolled nurse conversion or bridging course.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 February 1992]: As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of enrolled nurses employed by health boards is set out in table 1.

  Table 1

  Number of enrolled nurses (whole-time equivalents)

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde

  636.8

  Ayrshire and Arran

  355.8

  Borders

  140.4

  353

  Number

  Dumfries and Galloway

  217·0

  Fife

  684·7

  Forth Valley

  385·2

  Grampian

  1,040·1

  Greater Glasgow

  1,661·5

  Highland

  275·3

  Lanarkshire

  1,008·1

  Lothian

  1,000·7

  Orkney

  76·9

  Shetland

  54·1

  Tayside

  981·7

  Western Isles

  37·5

  Scotland

  8,555·8

  Information by health board on the number of enrolled nurses currently engaged on an enrolled nurse conversion or bridging course is not held centrally. The numbers of enrolled nurses on bridging courses in each college of nursing and midwifery at 30 September 1991 is, however, given in table 2 below.

  Table 2

  Number of enrolled nurses on bridging courses

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde

  27

  Ayrshire and Arran

  48

  Scottish Borders

  18

  Dumfries and Galloway

  20

  Fife

  37

  Forth Valley

  46

  Foresterhill

  37

  Greater Glasgow

  103

  Highland

  53

  Lanarkshire

  89

  Lothian

  132

  Tayside

  99

  Scotland

  709

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will order a public inquiry into the proposals of Scottish Nuclear to erect storage facilities for waste nuclear fuel at Torness and Hunterston.
  354
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 17 February 1992]: Scottish Nuclear Ltd. would require the consent of the Secretary of State in terms of the Electricity Act 1989 to build a dry store for spent advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel. No such application for consent has yet been made to the Secretary of State. The 1989 Act provides for a public inquiry to be held to consider unresolved objections to any application made in terms of section 36 of that Act.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations have been held with the officials and members of Lothian health board to discuss their latest management proposals; and if he will make a statement outlining the Government's view of the proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: Officials of the management executive of the national health service in Scotland are aware that Lothian health board is considering possible changes to the structure of the units of the board and 1 would expect the board to notify the management executive of its proposals before a final decision is taken. Changes in unit management arrangements are a matter for the board itself.

  Employment Initiatives
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives are being taken to improve employment prospects in Argyll and Bute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]: Argyll and the Islands Enterprise is currently preparing its business plan for 1992–93. It has created some 275 new jobs in their area during the current financial year and I am confident that they will continue to give high priority to employment prospects.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Government-Seized Goods: Auction Sales
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why government auctions of property seized by the Customs and Excise, the Official Receiver, the Collector of Taxes etc. are not advertised widely to the general public, with a view to bringing demand into balance with supply and raising more revenue for the Exchequer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, there is no central agency for government auction sales and each department make its own arrangements. Goods are generally sold by private auctioneers or brokers who are best able to judge supply and demand and provide the most cost-effective disposal. As an incentive to maximise prices auctioneers are paid a percentage of sales and are responsible for all advertising.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Despite his assurance, is it not evident that the present arrangements are amateurish and wholly cost-ineffective? Bottles of Glenfiddich Highland Malt which cost £18.99 in the shops are being sold at auction for £3.33; an electronic typewriter worth £650 for £18; and, as we read two days ago, a Lancashire businessman who owed the Inland Revenue £2,500 had his printing equipment worth £5,000 seized and sold for £45, thereby not merely ruining him but raising less than 2 per cent. of the amount owed to the Inland Revenue.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord has any evidence of impropriety, I shall be delighted to investigate it. Goods are generally second hand. If they have been through the Customs their packaging has often come off and they may sometimes be broken, and that may be why the prices sometime seem to be very low.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that people are being sold second-hand Highland Malt?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no, of course not. I am not aware of the circumstances about which the noble Lord is talking.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we obviously do not have any direct knowledge of this matter, but from what one has read in the newspapers there is at least a suggestion that, worse than impropriety, there is some illegality involved. Has the Minister any information about that? Has anything been reported to his department? Will he at least consider obtaining some
1444
information and letting us know about it? I agree that they are only newspaper stories, but they are disturbing.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree that there have been some disturbing newspaper stories, but there is no evidence of any wrongdoing or illegality by Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue. If the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has any information I would be delighted to hear about it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have a good point, in as much as few of your Lordships, or anyone else, ever hear of such sales in advance? We have heard with great interest about the possibility of the purchase of an agreeable stimulant at a modest price. Seriously, is that not an indication that there would be a much better market for those goods if they were fully and professionally advertised, and not left to some government department to muddle with?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that there is some misunderstanding. The amounts about which we are talking are relatively small —between £1 million and £2 million. They are often goods taken by Customs—cars, for instance. They are given to local auctioneers who then have the responsibility of advertising when the auctions are to take place. They are paid a percentage, and so it is clearly in their interests to obtain the maximum price. There is no central agency to look after the sale of government-seized goods, because that is regarded as being the most inefficient way of doing it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister agree to notify those noble Lords who have taken part in this exchange of the dates and places of the sales so that we may obtain cut-price goods?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, most auctions provide an opportunity to obtain cut-price goods. I am happy to see whether I can provide a list of where those auctions take place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, are not many of the goods which are auctioned in this way goods which were seized from people who went bankrupt or companies which went into liquidation? What happens to the proceeds of the auctions? Should not they be used to reduce the indebtedness in respect of which the goods were seized?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is generally true, but the Government, in the shape of the Inland Revenue, have first call on any available funds.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister said that the goods in question are worth only £1 million to £2 million. Is he talking about their value or the sale proceeds? On the evidence that I have, the first is between five and 10 times the second.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the goods are sold at auction, which I believe is generally recognised as the best way to reach the market price.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, is there a minimum duty on auctioneers to achieve what, in their terms, is the market price? Do they, for instance, have to advertise at least once before they organise a sale?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no. Generally auctioneers put the goods into general sales which they advertise in their own way. In some sales there are reserve prices, a point which is not generally understood.

London Buses: One-person Operation
11.12 a.m.
Baroness Phillips Baroness Phillips asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have held with London Transport concerning the efficiency of one-person operated buses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, decisions on the conversion of bus routes to one-person operation are a matter for London Transport. I understand that London Buses Limited considers such buses are safer because there are fewer boarding and alighting accidents and more reliable because each journey depends on the presence of one member of staff rather than two. However, London Transport intends to retain crew operation on the busiest central London routes where boarding and alighting times are most critical.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which is exactly what I expected. But I do not know why we have to express surprise or even thanks. The Government have shown great anxiety about congestion in London. We have even had debates on it. It is becoming much worse and is made so by one-man operated buses. I am interested that the Minister says that those buses are safer. Is he aware that if a driver operating a bus on his own is attacked he is much less safe than if he were in a crew operated bus?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness's anxiety about congestion is exaggerated because all types of buses only make up less than 2 per cent. of the traffic on major roads in London. Buses are themselves victims of the congestion, particularly through inconsiderate or illegal parking at bus stops or in bus lanes. As for attacks, anecdotal evidence indicates that there are more attacks on conductors than on drivers. Obviously the driver of a two-man operated bus is in his cabin. Measures of protection have been instituted for the one-person operated bus such as plastic screens and many buses have radios.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister state that in central London the usual two-man crew will operate all buses? He said that buses suffer just as much as any other vehicle on London's crowded roads. Does he agree that no other vehicle carries as many people as the London bus? Will the principle be maintained that all conductors will be trained in some
1446
form of first aid, particularly to deal with people who suffer from heart attacks or develop something else wrong when they are on the bus? At one time conductors were trained to deal with emergencies and this was a sane and worthwhile endeavour by London Transport.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the answer is no. London Buses Limited does not plan to have two-man crews on all the major central routes. However, it plans to retain crew operation on the busiest central London routes.
I agree with the noble Lord that buses are part of the solution to congestion rather than a cause of it. The operation of buses by just one person has meant that in a number of instances London Transport has been able to provide a more frequent service on the same routes, involving a cost saving which in turn attracts more passengers.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as concerns passenger safety there is great merit in one-man operated buses? I have discovered this in both London and Brighton. The driver does not start until his passengers are safely accommodated. On the other hand, conductors have an appalling habit of ringing the bell before one has reached one's seat. For an elderly and infirm person like myself this is a threat to life and limb.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. I believe that in my first Answer I said that the one-person operation has a better safety record. However, we should put that into context because all buses are a very safe form of transport and accidents are rare.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to ask one man to operate a bus and collect fares is too much? If the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, were accepted it would add to the burden. Will the noble Viscount check with London Transport the suggestion that the accident rate has decreased since the introduction of one-man buses? It is my view that it has increased considerably.
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. I tried to indicate that accidents on boarding and alighting have decreased. To answer the noble Lord's other question, most passengers (70 per cent.) now use travel passes. To that extent, conductors would not make a great deal of difference on the speed of the majority of bus journeys. Most of the people getting on buses have passes, so the driver is only concerned with taking fares from the minority of passengers.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Viscount properly answered a question posed by my noble friend about discussions with London Regional Transport. What discussions have taken place with the London Regional Passengers Committee? I ask because in a policy statement in April 1990 that committee was worried about the operation of OPO buses and made a number of suggestions that the staff should deal with other matters such as those referred to by my noble friend Lord Molloy, as well as looking after the operation of the bus. Can the noble Viscount further say whether there is any comparison between

1447
physical attacks on staff on OPO buses and on those operated by two people? Have these matters been discussed with the unions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the London Regional Passengers Committee responded to the consultation paper on deregulation put out by the Department of Transport. I believe that is what the noble Lord is interested in—the bus strategy for London. Since then meetings with Ministers have taken place in the department to discuss aspects of that consultation document. My honourable friend Mr. Freeman attended a recent committee meeting. Discussions certainly are taking place with London Regional Passengers Committee. I do not think that I can add anything to my remarks on attacks on staff. I cannot break down the figures between attacks on staff on buses where conductors are present and attacks on staff operating one-man buses.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that a one-person operated bus works perfectly adequately in a city such as New York in which passengers pay one standard fare? Every passenger knows when he boards the bus what the standard fare will be. However, in an infinitely larger city such as London differential fares are levied. It is intolerable that in London queues of people form and passengers fumble for change because they do not know the fare that they have to pay. It is that situation that causes congestion. Furthermore, is it not a fact that one-person operated buses have been forced on London Transport by the Government's refusal to subsidise that organisation? Transport bodies are subsidised in every other city of renown.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the situation in New York is perhaps not easily transferred to the rather larger city of London. As I believe I have already said, on the busiest routes London Buses Limited plans to retain its crew operation. That provision takes into account the noble Lord's point about the time taken to collect fares. However, I have indicated that one-person operated buses are more cost effective. The frequency of the service can be increased along with the number of passengers carried.

Dentists' Fees
11.22 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they propose to cut the fees paid to dentists from 1st April 1992.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, we continue to negotiate with dentists' representatives and a further meeting took place yesterday afternoon. As part of those discussions we agreed to re-examine, in association with the dentists' representatives, the detailed elements of the levels of fees. At the next formal meeting in May the results of that work will be considered and the fees scale set accordingly. Meanwhile the proposed reduction in fees will not be implemented.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on 10th February an 8.5 per cent. increase in dentists' income? Presumably he was fully aware that the Secretary of State for Health would announce on the same day that the 8.5 per cent, increase would in fact mean a cut of 13.8 per cent. It is obvious that the Government have now panicked and, faced with a mass exodus of dentists from the health service, they have put the matter on ice until after the general election. Does this not confirm the view widely held by dentists and their patients that the national health dentistry service is not safe in this Government's hands?
Lord Henley: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, I am not aware of the date of the election. We have put off consideration of these matters until May because that is when the next formal meeting of the body that will be examining dental fees will take place. We announced an increase in the targeted average national income of dentists of 8.5 per cent, and we stick to that. We hope to see an increase in what is known as TANI of 8.5 per cent.—that is, up to almost £36,000 —for the coming year. But over the past year we have seen what we expected to be expenditure on general dental services of £1.2 billion grow to £1.4 billion. It is not clear why the level of fees has risen quite so much. That is why we have agreed to the joint inquiry into these matters. But no responsible government could allow fees to grow quite at that rate in a quite uncontrolled manner. Therefore we consider that the best way forward would be to discuss the matter with the British Dental Association to see whether we can come forward with proposals that will lead to adequate remuneration and an increase in the TANI of 8.5 per cent.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, irrespective of whether the election will be held in early April or early May, is it not perfectly clear that the Secretary of State has simply bought off the problem and bought time until after the election, whenever that is? Will the Minister comment on the statement made yesterday by the British Dental Association that NHS dentistry is near to collapse due to the increasing number of dentists who are refusing to take patients other than private patients?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not see a growth from £1.2 billion to £1.4 billion as a sign of collapse. I can assure the noble Lord that some 76 per cent, of dentists still accept all NHS patients. Some 85 per cent, of all dentists will accept all children NHS patients.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is not the real story that dentists have treated more people in this current financial year than the Government have allowed money for? Furthermore, as inspections are required before treatment, does that not make absolute nonsense of the fears that charges are putting people off going to the dentist?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct to say that dentists are treating more people.

1449
Expenditure on NHS dental services has gone up by some 47 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and there are now 26 per cent. more dentists in Great Britain than there were in 1979.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurance that the Government are looking at this matter again. When they look at it again, will they take seriously the misgivings expressed by the British Dental Association which are shared by a great many dentists who as yet still provide the full National Health Service cover? When the Government look at this matter again, will they also reconsider the effect of the dentists contract on central London, especially as regards laboratory costs, the costs of premises and the costs of the uniform business rate, as those costs are causing severe problems in inner London?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that as well as looking into the level of expenditure and the reasons why it has grown over the past year, we have agreed simultaneously to begin a more fundamental review of the dental remuneration system as recommended by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body. One of the aims of the review will be to prevent a repetition of this current problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am relieved to hear my noble friend's statement that this matter is not just being deferred until after a general election, contrary to what was stated in The Times this morning. I am relieved to hear the matter will be examined in detail. I have been a practising dentist for over 30 years and I know that every time productivity is increased dental fees are cut by all governments. That has always been standard practice. Is it not time that the whole matter of the target average net income (TANI) was looked at because it is the word "average" that causes the problem? In some parts of the country dentists are barely surviving and dentists in certain age brackets are having problems surviving. Some dentists are doing well but we know that others are not.
Does my noble friend agree that the public suffer from misconceptions about dentists? When a target average net income of £35,000 plus is announced for the next year, the public think dentists receive that sum as a salary. However, they do not appreciate that dentists have to provide their own equipment and premises. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the uniform business rate. However, that is not relevant to this matter as dentists are now reimbursed by the Government for the uniform business rate. But all the other costs dentists face should be taken into account when considering this whole matter.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments. I can appreciate the problems she expounds as regards the use of TANI. I should stress that TANI stands for targeted average net income and not national income as I said before. The important point is that it is a targeted average net income and not a gross income. It is obviously important that the public should realise that we are looking at an increase in dentists' net income—that is, their income because they are self-employed—after all
1450
their practice expenses are taken into account. Those expenses will obviously be quite substantial. However, I can see no other way of managing these matters when one is dealing with the incomes of the self-employed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are quite large areas of the country where it is not possible for patients requiring dental treatment to obtain it under the National Health Service? Will the noble Lord please explain how that squares with the responsibility of the Government to provide dental treatment under the National Health Service where it is required?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have always accepted that there might be problems in some areas. Perhaps I may repeat the figures which I gave earlier: 76 per cent. of all dentists accept all NHS patients and 85 per cent. of dentists will accept all NHS children patients. If the noble Lord is having problems in any particular area I recommend that he goes to his family health services authority. Lastly, I should have thought expenditure of £1.4 billion on dental services belies the fact that dentists are leaving the NHS in droves.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the areas where dentistry is not available in some cases salaried dental services are being set up, and does he agree that the Government, through the regional health authorities, are meeting their commitment in that way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks. As I said, if the noble Lord was having problems himself he could go to his local family health services authority and seek advice there.

Contemporary Buildings: Listing
11.30 a.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on listing contemporary buildings.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government's policy is to identify the best examples of post-World War II architecture for listing. Twenty-seven buildings of the period have been listed to date, but we believe that a more systematic approach must now be adopted to provide a firm framework for assessing important buildings. English Heritage has therefore been asked to carry out a three-year research programme into the main building types to identify key exemplars across the country and to provide guidelines for future listings. In the meantime, we are prepared to act to protect buildings of special architectural or historic interest which are at risk.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging and constructive reply. Is it not essential that we preserve not only our past heritage, but also the contributions

1451
of our own generation? Can he elaborate further on what he said about the Government's plans to act with English Heritage in that regard?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course I agree with his first point but would qualify it by saying that the listing of post-war buildings in particular is a complex and highly sensitive matter. The recent past is notoriously difficulty to judge objectively and there can be a wide divergence of views on the merits of modern buildings.
English Heritage's research is already under way. English Heritage is being advised by a panel of specialists and the Historic Buildings Advisory Committee. It will consult widely and intends to hold a seminar in July on work in progress on the first building type to be researched and on the broader issues.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of buildings which were built since the war, however well designed, were constructed with materials which have begun to deteriorate? Is there, therefore, any procedure for de-listing buildings which have once been listed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend has made a very important point. Buildings should stand the test of time. It is precisely to formulate a set of principles of that kind that English Heritage has set about its task. Regarding my noble friend's specific question, yes, it is possible to de-list a listed building.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be considerable relief at his recognition of the difficulty of assessing the work of contemporary architects and at his recognition of the great danger in coming to conclusions on those buildings before time has had some effect on judgment? In illustration of that point, is he aware that the Alexander Fleming building recently inhabited by the Department of Health and Social Security—a monument to depression—was awarded a certificate of merit as an architectural gem at the time it was opened?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was aware of my noble friend's point. The case for listing Alexander Fleming House was carefully considered by Ministers in 1988 before they decided, on the advice of English Heritage, not to list the building.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
11.34 a.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The proposals set out in the Bill give effect to the policies for the reorganisation of further and higher education contained in the White Papers Access and Opportunity and Higher Education: A New Framework, which were published last year. They provide the framework for the achievement of a greatly expanded system of further and higher
1452
education in Scotland. We aim to increase participation and open up many more opportunities for individuals to benefit. Education has always been vital in Scotland, and we mean to ensure that access to post-school education is widely available. It is for those reasons that the Bill has been warmly welcomed by colleges and universities throughout Scotland.
Three themes run through our reforms: autonomy, access and choice. The best way of ensuring that education is tailored to meet the real needs of students is to devolve responsibility for management to institutions. The staff of those institutions, guided by representative governing bodies, are best equipped to make decisions about the day-to-day administration of their universities and colleges. The role of the centre is to provide coherence and a fair and equitable system of funding support. Our policies are aimed at achieving the right balance between local autonomy and central oversight.
If we are to increase participation, we must open up access beyond the traditional routes into further and higher education from schools. Further education is increasingly becoming an alternative stepping stone into higher education. Much more could be done to ease progression between further and higher education and we shall continue to encourage that. We have already achieved much through our support of the Scottish wider access programme and our funding support for the modularisation of Scotvec's advanced qualifications. Opening up access to those in work and those at home through open learning and part-time provision also offers scope for expansion. The moves being made to develop credit accumulation and transfer systems will stimulate that.
The third theme of our proposals is choice. We wish to encourage a diversity of provision to meet the wide range of needs of individuals. Underlying choice has to be a guarantee that individuals can be assured of quality. We are determined to safeguard standards as we expand provision. We attach importance, therefore, to our proposals to underpin quality assurance and audit. Choice also involves a measure of competition. That already exists, students choose which university or college to attend based on what is offered. That is natural and is a powerful incentive to maintain standards. It does not, however, mean that collaboration should not take place. Improving links between universities and colleges widens choice and ensures greater opportunities.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Part I deals with further education, Part II with higher education, and Part III with miscellaneous and general matters.
Clause 1 of the Bill sets out a new duty of the Secretary of State for further education, which is defined in Clause 6. That includes vocational and Scottish Examination Board qualifications, provision for those with learning difficulties and access courses to higher education. Clause 2 leaves with education authorities a duty to secure provision of community education and a power to provide that further education which is within the duty of the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that he intends to continue to provide as now financial support to local authorities

1453
through the aggregate external finance settlement for the provision of community education and for other further education outwith colleges. That safeguards this important provision. He will report to Parliament annually on the exercise of his duties for further education. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State power to fund boards of management of further education colleges and others in respect of further education. Boards will be funded on the basis of the full range of provision they currently provide, be it vocational or non-vocational. That, equally, is an important safeguard for existing provision.
Clauses 7 to 10 and Schedule 1 give the Secretary of State the power to establish by order a Scottish further education funding council which would exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, advise, assist and report to him in relation to his functions, and generally provide him with information and advice as regards the provision of further education. To maintain stability in the system such a council will not be established at 1st April 1993, when the further education colleges become self-governing. They will be funded directly by the Scottish Office Education Department, which has long experience of funding the grant-aided higher education colleges in Scotland. Once the new system settles down a future Secretary of State will be able to examine the case for a funding council, taking account of the views of the colleges.
Clause 12 and Schedule 2 provide for the duties, powers, composition and proceedings of the boards of management. Colleges already have councils with delegated powers. Membership of the new boards will be largely drawn from existing members and their new duties and powers will build on their existing delegated powers from education authorities.
Remaining provisions in Part I deal with the transfer of staff, land and property, publishing information on education provision in colleges and control and disposal of property in the run up to April 1993.
Part II of the Bill gives effect to our proposed reforms of higher education. Clauses 37 to 43 establish the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and set out its composition and main functions. Clause 39 is of particular importance. It gives the funding council a duty to make arrangements for assessing the quality of education provided by those institutions that it funds, with the advice of a quality assessment committee.
Clauses 40 and 41 cover the administration of funding by the council. Clause 42 empowers the Secretary of State to make grants to the council, subject to such conditions as he may determine. Those conditions must be general and may not be expressed so as to affect any particular institution. Clause 43 deals with the provision by the council of information and advice about Scottish higher education.
Clause 44 provides the technical means by which the Secretary of State can designate an institution providing higher education as eligible to receive funds from the council. The Secretary of State, however, cannot designate any of the existing universities. They are eligible for funding automatically. The following
1454
clause, Clause 45, transfers to the Privy Council powers relating to the governance of designated institutions. Those powers are currently exercised by the Secretary of State under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
Clause 48 allows the Privy Council to make an order conferring degree-awarding powers on institutions. Clause 49, which is one of the most important clauses in the Bill, empowers the Privy Council to approve a change of name for a designated institution, including a university title. In doing so, the Privy Council must have regard to the need to avoid names which are capable of causing confusion with the name of any other institution within the higher education sector.
Clauses 50 to 53 impose a duty on various bodies to provide the council with the information that it requires to carry out its functions. They allow the council to arrange efficiency studies and describe how the powers vested in the Privy Council may be exercised. They also provide for the inspection of accounts of universities and designated institutions by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Clause 54 requires the funding council to comply with directions contained in an order made by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the Government's higher education funding policy. He therefore requires a reserve power to issue directions to the council as a last resort. The Secretary of State may only give directions relating to specific institutions in the case of either financial mismanagement or if the financial affairs of the institution have been significantly adversely affected for some other reason. The Secretary of State must also consult the council and the institution concerned before giving such direction.
Clause 55 restates the Secretary of State's powers in relation to teacher training currently contained in the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965, and extends these to teacher training wherever it may take place, not simply in colleges of education. The remaining clauses deal with minor and technical matters.
The Bill is, above all else, about opportunity. It increases access to further and higher education for more Scots by giving greater independence to institutions to adapt and attract students. Our system of qualifications in Scotland facilitates that move to wider access. The reforms will enable the further education colleges to continue to flourish and develop ever closer links with higher education for the benefit of their students and local employers. The advantages are clearly seen by the Association of Principals of Colleges in Scotland, which welcomes and supports our proposals.
The Bill is no less important for higher education. It removes artificial and outmoded distinctions between our higher education institutions, and creates a framework to enable them to respond flexibly, efficiently and imaginatively to the needs of our economy and the aspirations of our students in the years ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Strathclyde).
11.45 a.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are all grateful for the way in which the Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not believe that a long Second Reading debate is needed. The Bill was exhaustively debated in another place. Noble Lords who have an interest in the Bill will have read, if not fully digested, the long proceedings which took place there.
This side of the House is concerned with improving the Bill. Some improvements were made to it in another place but many loose ends were left. We hope that noble Lords will assist us to tie them up. We intend to put forward important amendments in Committee in a constructive way. Knowing the reputation of this House in matters of education, we hope and expect to hear powerful arguments from across the Party spectrum. We hope to convince the Minister and the Government of the educational shortcomings of the Bill.
As the Minister said, the Bill is in two parts. The first part relates to further education, and deals with the colleges of further education. We believe that at present they are generally successfully controlled by the local education authorities. The second part of the Bill we shall remodel in a number of ways, although we are generally in support of its provisions. For instance, we are pleased that the binary divide has been at least partly removed. That is welcome, but claims that it has been totally removed are perhaps exaggerated. It has been moved rather than removed. It has been moved down the scale—if that is the right expression to use, without denigrating the colleges and polytechnics that will be left out.
We have more sympathy with the second part of the Bill than with the first part. Let me deal with that first. Four existing centrally funded colleges are to become universities and 13 others will continue as centrally funded colleges providing higher education courses. Some further education colleges will provide higher education courses with the funding for those courses being channelled through the new Higher Education Funding Council.
We are concerned that the new universities that will be created by the enactment of the Bill may not have access to research funding on an equal basis with the existing universities. That issue, which was debated in committee in the other place, was not properly addressed by the Minister of State in that debate. We believe that it is important, if the new institutions are to acquire the standing and not merely the name of a university, that the research base is strengthened.
Scotland is to have 12 universities instead of eight. The quality of that provision can be assured only if additional resources are made available to make it possible for research to continue. I do not believe that funding from industry, important though it is, can be sufficient. Twelve institutions cannot compete for resources which were previously shared by eight, without there being an adverse effect on quality. That takes no account of the parallel changes occurring in England and Wales. The funding provided by the
1456
research councils to universities operates on a UK-wide front. Those funds will be the subject of even more fierce competition.
Certainly we shall wish to have reassurance on the funding. But perhaps the most obviously important point, in particular for those who will not be involved in the details of the Bill, will be the one that has been referred to as the Bill of amendment which was contained in the English Bill. It deals with academic freedom. Amendments will be tabled covering that issue. However, I am fairly sure that the House will be pushing at an open door on that matter and that the Minister will be happy to make concessions on much the same lines as provided in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to the English Bill.
Part I of the Bill, which deals with further education, gives us much greater cause for concern. We believe that it is motivated by a desire to reduce the powers of local authorities still further. The Government have done a great deal of that during their period of office. From the Government's point of view it has also given a way of reducing local council charges by taking an important part of the education budget away from local authorities.
We believe that the Government have completely misunderstood the vital local nature of further education colleges, which, unlike central institutions, form an integral part of the regional education system. Further education colleges are much more local, with most of the students living locally. The Government's claim that choice will be greatly helped is partly true but only in the big conurbations. It would not be true in more isolated places. With regard to further education colleges a high proportion of students live at home. That limits their possible choice.
The colleges are part of the community. They are known to the people in the area through a wide range of informal education uses. They serve the interests of the whole community and should be part of what ordinary people believe their community to be. They should be locally accountable through the democratic local councils. We shall seek to press that issue on the Government again.
We believe that the Government have few friends on this part of the Bill. Even The Times Educational Supplement Scotland —which the Government have been known to quote and which the Minister referred to obliquely today in his defence—makes it clear in an article by the chairman of the Scottish branch of the Association of Principals of Colleges, on 29th November 1991, that they have grave misgivings on the Bill. The Minister stated—he probably saw me wince—that the principals of the colleges of further education were in favour of the Bill. What did Mr. Craig Brown, the chairman of the principals say? In the article he stated,
"The 1989 Act was such a flawed piece of legislation that its successor was inevitable although few people expected it so quickly."
We welcome the acceptance of amendments in another place dealing with the special needs provision of the Bill and the power of the future Secretary of State to set up a further education funding council. The latter was accepted rather grudgingly by the Minister of State in another place. Therefore, we shall

1457
be pressing the point again at Committee stage in this House. We shall also be asking questions about the proposed boards of management for further education colleges, their selection, composition and self-perpetuation because it strikes us as being a self-perpetuating quango. The Government, of course, vowed to get rid of such quangos.
There are grounds for excluding people from boards of management which are not mentioned in the schedule to the Bill. Although we accept the fact that the business community can make a very good and important contribution to the colleges of education, and perhaps those who have been on the boards have been able to help in many ways, we believe that there can be a conflict of interest with them as well as with other people on the board. We shall certainly take up that issue.
We are also concerned with the transfer of property of the colleges of education. The properties have been built out of public funds by the local authorities. They have been contributed to by local authorities and the Government. We believe that there should be some allowance to the local authority so that they do not still have debts left if the money is transferred immediately to the new set up.
We hope that this House will make amendments to Part II. We believe that it is the correct place to deal in detail with such a Bill. I am sorry that the Government did not accept the suggestion of my honourable friend in another place that the Bill would have been better had a Select Committee procedure been adopted for, let us say, three sittings to discuss some of the details of the Bill. Principals and educationists could be questioned before we debated the Bill. That would have removed a great many of the problems.
We believe that Part I is seriously flawed. We shall give every assistance to improving Part II and to getting it on the statute book. Although we shall have a number of amendments on Part I, we have no intention of deliberately holding up the Bill. We believe that the importance of Scottish education is too great to play parliamentary games. We shall give every assistance to the Minister and we hope that in return he will be able to make some concessions.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, for once Scottish legislation follows English legislation. We have ironed out many of the issues and will thus have a smoother ride than with the English Bill. We have drawn up many of our battle lines already.
On these Benches, and I hope on all sides of the House, we are very much in favour of the expansion of university status to those colleges in Scotland which undertake predominantly higher education work. However, one of the anomalies of a binary divide has been exposed in the Bill by the fact that in Scotland many of the further education colleges also take on higher education work. That may be because Scotland did not experience the expansion of the polytechnics.
1458
Therefore, many of the institutions which will take on higher education work will not become universities as they will in England.
An important question arose on the English Bill and will arise on this Bill; namely, that colleges of further education should effectively be given similar controls over their academic freedom and independence to those in the higher education sector. I was never able to understand the divide. Which was more important, further education or higher education? When two institutes undertake similar work the line once again becomes blurred. I hope that the Government will consider favourably some greater form of academic freedom for the colleges of further education along the lines of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and accepted during the debate on the English Bill. That may go against the grain. However, I hope that the Government will not totally rule the matter out of hand when they consider the somewhat different aspects of the Scottish further education sector, and the fact that the divide is not quite so distinct as it is in England.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that further education should be in the hands of local authorities and should be more strongly influenced by them than is at present provided for in the Bill. It is a rather hackneyed argument—I have heard it so many times during the debate on the previous Bill—that local authorities should be at least an even partner in the provision of further education. The local authorities look to their communities as a whole. If people have voted in such authorities, it surely makes sense to give them some input as regards the communities because the local authorities will be representing the communities' interests if they do their job properly. I hope that the Government accept that most local authorities, regardless of political colour, would be prepared to look after what they consider to be the best interests of their constituents. Moreover, as they are closer to the community, they probably have a vague idea of those best interests.
Student representation on the board has been improved. We are in favour of heads of student unions being represented on the board. However, I am not sure whether that is totally adequate. As I stated during our debates on the English Bill, the students must be regarded as the consumers and the heart of the institutions. Everything else connected with an institution is merely the bones; the students put the flesh on it. Therefore, the Government should pay far more attention to what they think.
Many adults are involved in higher education, (although there are a few people under the age of 18) and there are also people involved who are undertaking part-time work. Surely greater consideration should have been given to their input. I shall return to that matter during later stages of the Bill, as no doubt the noble Lord suspects. I hope that the Government will consider making further changes and taking further steps towards considering the attitudes of student representatives, not only those people who occupy positions within the colleges.

1459
Those involved in running a students union already have a job to do and there is a great possibility of overloading people.
The Bill has many positive attitudes, especially in respect of higher education. It eliminates a completely artificial and arbitrary line which developed by accident because it was thought that if two higher education institutions were introduced they would develop along different lines. It has become increasingly apparent that that does not work. I am in favour of Part II of the Bill and will therefore give the Government every support in getting it right. However, as regards Part I, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that we can see little justification for the removal of the provisions for further education from local control.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when an English lawyer seeks to intervene on a Bill concerned with Scottish education a word of apology and a plea for indulgence is required. I intervene for three reasons. First, I share to the full the feeling prevalent south of the Border of admiration for Scottish education, not least for Scottish higher education. At times and in certain disciplines it has led the whole world. Secondly, I share the apprehension that has been aroused by the Bill and its counterpart English Bill about academic freedom. Thirdly, I do not believe that those apprehensions can be understood without a knowledge of the common background and of what happened in relation to the English Bill.
I shall speak solely on the aspect of academic freedom relating to Clauses 42 and 54 of the Bill. Before doing so I wish to say that it is a privilege to intervene in a Bill piloted by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I was an admiring colleague in the other place both of his father and his grandfather. The background to the two clauses to which I have referred goes back a long way. During the previous century there was an institution of government funding for institutions of higher education. Immediately and wisely what was called the "arm's-length" relationship was established. The Government paid the piper and was responsible to Parliament for the money that was paid, but they wisely refrained from calling the tune. Matters proceeded satisfactorily on that basis. In 1919 the arm's-length approach was institutionalised by the setting up of the University Grants Committee common to both sides of the Border. Again, that system worked satisfactorily. At one time I saw something of its working from inside the government department which was then responsible for the funding of universities and institutions of higher education.
In the Education Reform Bill 1988, which was a United Kingdom Bill, there was perceived to be a double threat to academic freedom. That has been resuscitated in the two measures to which I have referred. The Government took power to intervene in individual institutions in two ways. First, they gave directions to the funding council about how it should distribute the funds provided. Secondly, they enabled
1460
the Secretaries of State to attach conditions to the grant of funds. That was a double-barrelled weapon. Either barrel would serve the purpose of allowing the Government to intervene in the affairs of individual institutions.
It caused great alarm. The principal contest took place in the other place during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. However, Members of your Lordships' House played a considerable and important part in the controversy and in helping to achieve the concessions that were ultimately vouchsafed. Since it was a double-barrelled weapon, a safety catch had to be fitted to both barrels and that was done. Neither by direction nor by attaching conditions to grant was the Minister to be able to intervene in the affairs of individual, specific institutions. Everybody was satisfied.
However, within three years an English department brought proceedings in a case which came before Mr. Justice Simon Brown in the High Court. By using the condition-making power the Government sought to increase the accountability of staff for their time in order to ensure greater flexibility of deployment and to introduce appraisal schemes. That was obviously an interference in matters which normally fell within the administrative competence of the institution in question. The way in which the Government sought to intervene on that occasion was to withhold £13 million of the grant for 1990–91. I believe that the actual crunch came in the following year.
In the end, it came to this. Those institutions which could certify that they had satisfied the requirements of the Secretary of State would have released to them what was called their share of the £13 million; in other words, the proportionate part of that £13 million that would attach to the institution. However, those institutions which would not certify as the Secretary of State required would not receive the funds.
Mr. Justice Simon Brown had two issues to consider: whether those were conditions and, secondly, whether they were conditions which fell foul of the 1988 Act. He held, your Lordships may think inevitably, that both those conditions were satisfied. The Minister was trying to impose conditions which would have driven a coach and horses through the provisions and safeguards of the 1988 Act. It was no more than using the funding councils as a conduit pipe. It was really bypassing them and the will of the Secretary of State was to be impinged on the individual institutions. That failed. However, what was seen to be extremely alarming was that the department, having failed in the High Court, then came back and invoked those Bills to reinstate the original form of the 1988 Act; in other words, to renege on the undertakings that had been given to Parliament and specifically to the other place at Report stage.
Naturally, that aroused extremely great apprehension which was all the greater because there had been an undertaking that was gone back on. I may say that it was not an entirely one-sided arrangement because there had been considerable agitation in the other place that the powers of direction should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and not left to the

1461
ineffective negative resolution procedure. That concession having been made by the Government, the critics dropped that plea.
That was the position when those two Bills came into Parliament in this Session. As regards the counterpart of Clause 54, at the very last moment the Government made a number of concessions which were felt to be satisfactory. They are reflected in Clause 54. I say that that was done at the very last moment because amendments were tabled as starred amendments on Third Reading.
As regards the counterpart of Clause 42—the condition-imposing clause—the Government again tabled an amendment that went some way towards satisfying their critics. That had been adumbrated on Report and was thought to be inadequate. It was then withdrawn but tabled as a starred amendment on Third Reading.
As that was unsatisfactory an amendment was carried against the Government, promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, indicated, that virtually closed the loophole. Perhaps I may read the government amendment which stated:
"Such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed)."
As that was inadequate your Lordships carried an amendment against the Government which added:
"or to the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff and for the admission of students".
The extraordinary thing is that the English Secretary of State has accepted all the amendments made in your Lordships' House, including those which were carried against the Government. However, neither the Government's amendment nor the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, appears in the Scottish Bill. I venture to ask the Minister why that should be so and why a safeguard which has been written into the English Bill and accepted by the Secretary of State should not be in the Scottish Bill.
Do the Government really wish the Secretary of State to be able to interfere in the selection and appointment of academic staff or the admission of students? It would be extremely easy to picture the worst scenario that the existing loophole allows. However, perhaps that can be left to a later stage.
As I say, the English Bill and the Commons' history of it, and not least the attempt to subvert and renege on the undertakings and concessions that were made in 1988, will, I believe, cause your Lordships to scrutinise existing loopholes in this Bill with very great care.
12.18 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has no need to apologise for intervening in a debate on Scottish affairs. The benefit of his wisdom, experience and thinking on this issue has been appreciated by us all.
1462
Perhaps I may just say to him—and I shall return to Part II of the Bill in a moment—that this Bill has not been drafted in England but has been drafted by the Scottish Office. Many aspects are quite different from the English Bill and it will operate under Scottish law and not under English law, as did the law when Mr. Justice Simon Brown's judgment was given.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the improvements made to the Bill in the other place. I go further than he did. Thinking back over the nine-and-a-half years during which I have been a Member of this House, I can remember no other Scottish Bill which has been the subject of such effective and fruitful cross-party debate in another place. As a result the Bill has been greatly amended and improved in the House of Commons. A number of the amendments were far-reaching and most were agreed across the parties. At the end of the discussion in another place all parties paid tribute to the Minister on the outcome and he to them. That was a satisfactory procedure on the Bill in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said somewhat ominously that, as far as he is concerned, the battle lines on the Bill are already drawn because of the discussion on the Bill for England and Wales. But this Bill in many respects is different to that Bill. The situation in Scotland, particularly in further education, is also different. If there are battle lines—I hope there are not many—they will be different battle lines. That is an important point. I am entirely unbriefed by the Government about this. I say that from my own experience and after discussing the matter with Scottish local authorities and with Scottish college principals.
I shall begin with Part I of the Bill. It is widely recognised, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in this regard, that the expansion of vocational education and training—the obtaining of job-related qualifications and skills by more people —is crucial to Scotland's future. Dare I say that it is even more important at this time than the expansion of higher education?
For many years, certainly since I was first involved in the scene in the 1970s, it has been clear that, if they are to work closely with and respond swiftly and flexibly to the needs of industry and commerce in Scotland, colleges need a greater freedom of action than was possible within the restraints of local authority management. The 1989 legislation began that process. It strengthened the college councils, for example, and built on the experience of those that already had extra autonomy.
As a result, further education colleges have matured. Since 1985, when Napier, Glasgow Polytechnic, Robert Gordon and so on chose to free themselves from local authority control, they have flourished and expanded enormously and the quality of what they provide has greatly improved. It is clear that the other further education colleges should be allowed to benefit in the same way. In addition, it is an interesting fact which may or may not be recognised by noble Lords based south of the Border that the

1463
number of administrative awkwardnesses which this House identified in the England and Wales Bill do not exist in the same way in Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde referred to the fact that in Scotland young people of 16 to 18 years can choose whether to follow further education Scotvec General Certificate modules by staying on at school or by moving on to further education colleges. In fact, because there is plenty of room in many schools at present, many students are being persuaded to stay on. As a result, the number of 16 to 18 year-olds in colleges has reduced markedly. The large further education college in Dundee, the college of Mr. Craig Brown to whom the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred, now has only 9 per cent. of all its students aged under 19. The impending report of the Howie Committee may change that in some respects. But the flexibility of the modular system means that the so-called overall strategy for 16 to 18 year-olds would not be the problem that some suggest if the colleges became their own managers.
Of course the local authorities will be sorry to cease running the further education colleges. They have done it for many years and on the whole have done it well. It is natural also that the lecturers and other groups want to retain their central negotiating role with local authorities as employers. I do not blame them for wanting that. But there are new, huge responsibilities coming to local authorities. Community care, with vast budgets and time commitments and considerable cost for council tax payers, will be an important function for local government and one that is suitable for it with its extremely local nature.
Further education colleges are not quite as local as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested. People now travel further. If local authorities become smaller single-tier all-purpose authorities, further education colleges will operate more across local government boundaries than at present.
It is also extremely important for further education colleges, if they are to be able to work closely with the new enterprise councils and with employers, if they are going to be able to respond swiftly, effectively and pragmatically to the education and training needs for the world at work as those needs arise, to know their budget for the years ahead. They must be able to maximise on the use of those funds as they wish. They must control their own payroll, be able to motivate and involve their own staff and deal with their own purchasing and building maintenance. They must not have to wait sometimes for weeks for decisions which education authority officials are bound to make. They must have the scope for tight, efficient and responsive management. Even the most efficient local authority procedures cannot produce that effect. It is not the fault of local authorities; it is the nature of local government and of its responsibilities to the public. It is the way local government has to manage all its enterprises.
The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Addington, are right to voice the anxiety of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and of teachers and other unions. But on this main thrust of
1464
the Bill we must take note of the track record of the colleges which have left local authority control and give others the same scope. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to Mr. Craig Brown's article which was censured by CoSLA. I do not believe he has read it too carefully. Mr. Brown is a great enthusiast for the Bill and he and his colleagues would regard it as a disaster if it did not come into being. I can assure the noble Lord of that.
One important change made in the Bill at Report stage is the ability for the Secretary of State for Scotland of the day, when the time is right, to cease funding the further education colleges direct and to set up a further education funding council for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that he welcomed that; his party certainly welcomed it in another place. In another place the Labour Party said that it would like a date set now for its implementation. That would be possible, but I understand the principals of the colleges think that the Bill is wise to make the arrangement as it does.
If the Bill becomes law as it stands there is no way that any Secretary of State for Scotland could fail to set up a council in due course; the pressure on him would be far too great, as we all know. But some time must pass during which the colleges and the Scottish Office, with local authority help, work out the new funding mechanisms, the budgets each college will require, the interaction with the local authority funded bursaries, the funding of people who do not have bursaries, the staff that will be needed to cope with the new corporate status and so on. It would be much easier for all this to be done and a stable system set in place before the establishment of the funding council. We may want to look at this matter in Committee. It seems to me—I believe that the college principals who have to operate the system agree—that Clauses 7 to 10 as now drafted have it about right.
One anxiety has been expressed to me as regards community education. For a number of years I was chairman of the Scottish Community Education Council. During that time the professionals who worked in community education often expressed the view that community education should be defined. That is natural. They want their own field to be seen as a discrete area. That has never happened and no definition appears now in this Bill. Community education has remained an umbrella term, a part of further education which includes adult education, adult basic education, youth work and so on. In my view community education has been greatly strengthened by remaining as an umbrella term within further education. I hope that we shall not change that.
Unlike the England and Wales legislation, the Scottish Bill leaves the very important area of adult basic education, literacy and numeracy and skills education at the most basic level with local authorities where it will be funded in the normal way. At the same time further education colleges that wish to run adult basic education courses which are a preparation for other further education courses can do so and be

1465
funded through them. I understand that the local authorities, the colleges and the community education council are all happy with that arrangement.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill. It seems now that the eight Scottish universities, the polytechnics and central institutions are all happy with the setting up of a separate higher education funding council for Scotland. There is a danger that the universities—for example, the University of St. Andrews; I am a member of the court of that university—which attract many students from south of the Border may have more difficulty in doing so in future. That would be greatly to the detriment of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made reference to another danger as regards funding, research and so on. We shall doubtless return to that in Committee.
On balance, it seems that to all concerned a separate Scottish funding council is the best way. I understand that the Scottish universities are now satisfied with this part of the Bill except for one reservation which they have as regards the powers left with the Secretary of State. Those are the powers referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. They relate to Clause 42, setting out the terms and conditions on which the Secretary of State for Scotland may make grants to the Scottish funding council, and Clause 54, dealing with the general directions that the Secretary of State for Scotland may give about the exercise of the council's funding.
It is the same anxiety, as the noble and learned Lord said, which was aired at such length during the passage through this House of the English and Welsh Bill. It is known as the issue of academic freedom. This Bill was drafted differently to the English Bill and it has been amended differently. It has been amended by the Scottish Office in the light of its experience of running the central institutions which it funded directly. The Bill bears that mark.
The Bill was amended in another place at Report stage and it was amended in a different way from the English Bill. At that time Members of Parliament and, I understand, the Government were all under the impression that Clauses 42 and 54 would be satisfactory to all the university principals in Scotland. However, it now seems that the principals, having looked carefully at the two clauses, take the view that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have more power to intervene in their affairs than will the Secretaries of State for England and Wales. They feel that that is wrong and that the wording of the England and Wales Bill should be repeated in the Scottish Bill.
I hope that the Government will feel that that desire can be met. I shall be interested to hear anything that my noble friend may have to say on the point when he replies to this debate. If the Government do not feel inclined to table their own amendments on this matter, I give notice that I shall certainly do so. That having been said, I simply reiterate that the passage of this Bill in its improved form is of importance to the education and training of people in Scotland. We can improve the Bill but I hope that no one, for any
1466
reason, will attempt to frustrate it. I hope that at the end of this debate the House will give the Bill an enthusiastic Second Reading.
12.36 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I have no wish to provoke a West London question by intervening on a Scottish Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for her assurance that any misgivings on that point would be unnecessary. We sometimes find in this House, when we consider a Scottish Bill immediately after an English Bill on a similar subject, that the atmosphere becomes a little like Boxing Day. Looking around this Chamber, it does not look particularly like an historic occasion. Yet such is the nature and paradox of the occasion that it is perfectly possible that that might actually be one of the reasons why this might be an historic occasion. For it is perfectly possible that this may be the last piece of domestic Scottish legislation to be considered by the Union Parliament at Westminster. It is at least possible that in a Parliament at Edinburgh there will be more interested parties present on a Friday morning and involved in the legislation than there are here now. I agree—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Earl proceeds, perhaps I may say that he has made a political point. It was agreed a week ago yesterday across the Floor of the House to consider the Bill, but then objection was made and the Bill was sidelined to a Friday. The number of Scottish noble Lords on my own side and on the noble Earl's side of the House who would have been present to speak on that earlier occasion, but who are not here now, would have been greater. The discussion has been greatly impoverished by that fact. The present arrangement has not been very satisfactory for the discussion of legislation for Scotland. That is why it does not appear to be like Boxing Day, as the noble Earl described it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the original arrangement was quite unsuitable and that it aroused great protest on all sides of the House?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that remark. I was aware of the question, but I was not in the Chamber when it was discussed and that is why I have not alluded to it. It seems that there was some difficulty in securing a satisfactory arrangement either way and that rather illustrates my point that there is often such a difficulty about the timetabling of Scottish Bills.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about Clauses 42 and 54. In other words, there is agreement from all quarters of the House.
I have noticed that every time we debate a Scottish Bill there are exchanges to and fro across the Chamber about how far Scottish and English law should, or should not be uniform. It might be helpful to the House to consider that as a general question rather

1467
than invoking it as a piece of special pleading on every occasion. The circumstances in which I think it is proper for Scottish law to be different are when the Scottish legal system is involved; when there are particular circumstances such as the fact that the Church in Scotland is not the same Church; the principle of what one might regard as affirmative action—for example, the clause in the Act of Union of 1707 which guarantees the survival in perpetuity of the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrew's and Aberdeen—or that there is, on occasion, a very healthy competition between the legal systems of the two countries. It must always be in order to recommend something on the grounds that it is actually better.
Conversely, the argument for uniformity applies for principles of general fairness incorporated in the equal taxation provisions of the Act of Union, where one is arguing that the other system is better, or for the sake of tidiness and consistency. I would argue that the second and third of those principles of uniformity apply here. I cannot see that any of the normal grounds for justifying differences apply.
I shall not elaborate on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said about Clauses 42 and 54. The specific passages in those clauses that concern people are the use of "notwithstanding" in Clause 42 and the use of the word "outwith" in Clause 54. "Outwith" is a good Scots word. In principle, I am perfectly happy to see it in a Scottish Bill. I am not so sure about seeing it in this place. I know it has been argued that the general intention of the clause is benign. That may well be. But as my honourable friend Mr. Stephen argued in another place, that intention is not embodied in the Bill. It is not clear that the use of that clause would necessarily be denied.
On Part I of the Bill I listened with care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, had to say. I agree, as I believe everyone on these Benches does, with the general principles that my noble friend Lord Addington was stating about local authorities. We shall listen to the debate as it goes ahead and see what emerges. I also noticed in Part I a curious point in the drafting of Clause 7 concerning the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. That is drafted in the enabling manner; that the Minister "may" establish a funding council. I was a little intrigued by that because if he "may", conversely, it must mean that he "may not". If he does not, I do not quite understand what is envisaged or what will happen.
We had a good deal of debate on Part I of the English Bill about the case for further delay. I shall not reiterate that. But there is one point in the Scottish situation which seems to be distinctly different. The changes introduced by the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act came into effect just four months ago, so introducing these new changes right on top of them might make change begin to appear a little like a waterfall. I wonder whether there is a stronger case in the Scottish Bill than there was in the English for a commencement date of 1994.
On Part II of the Bill we on these Benches agree formally with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. We are firmly in favour of the end of the
1468
binary line. We welcome it. We have been arguing for it for a long time. We argued for it and we voted for it in 1988. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, we have some misgivings about the way in which it is being done. We agree entirely with what the noble Lord said about the need for additional resources.
Our misgivings may go a little deeper. I note the comments of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Association on the danger to research funding under this Bill. It said:
"Twelve institutions cannot compete for resources previously shared only by eight without there being an adverse effect on quality."
That misgiving is one that we share quite deeply. We noticed what the Minister said about the purpose of the Bill being to achieve wider access. We on these Benches share that purpose. The expansion of higher education is a purpose shared between all three parties. But there is some ground for concern about how that is being done. The most cursory reading of the Bill will illustrate that it is being done by means of promotion of what the Government call efficiency.
The Minister may have noticed an article in this morning's Independent by Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, formerly chief executive of the Universities Funding Council and before that chairman of the University Grants Committee. He should know a good deal of what he is talking about. One point that article serves to illustrate is why the Government have always been so resistant to allowing the funding councils to give advice in public. We are beginning to get some indication of what we may have been missing by that insistence. Sir Peter is very deeply concerned by the effect of expansion without additional resources. He states:
"The Government describes its application of market economics to university funding as promoting 'efficiency', because it has no means of measuring quality and whether it has fallen".
Earlier in the article he stated:
"No doubt we can bring our unit costs down to the French level if we bring our higher education standards down to theirs as well".
That is worth considerable thought as an example of the kind of issues that are causing concern as a result of the reduction of the unit of resource.
I have given the Minister notice that I intended to raise the issue of the freezing of the chair of Scottish history in the University of Edinburgh. There is no more sensible place to have that chair than right on top of the archives. I have worked, in the same day, in the Scottish Record Office, the National Library and Edinburgh University Library. That the main chair of Scottish history should be in that place makes a very great deal of sense.
I received a letter recently from a distinguished American historian of Scotland who is a corresponding member of the Council of the Scottish History Society. What he says is worth thought:
"If Edinburgh's university leaves the Chair dedicated to the study of the nation's history empty, it will be saying to the people of Scotland, and to the world of historical scholarship, that Scotland's history is so unimportant that its study can be sacrificed for the sake of saving a few pounds".
I shall not elaborate on the view which I hold profoundly that by that way we shall not be able to

1469
understand English history either. But I will say that this is perhaps an inexpedient moment to give that signal to the people of Scotland.
I think I can script pretty well what the Minister's reply will be. The Minister will say that the Government respect the autonomy of the universities and that decisions about allocation of their resources must be made by the universities within their own priorities according to the resources available. That is a little bit like Hobbes's argument, that the man who jumped out of the top floor window of a burning building was quite free not to do so. There is no dispute about the truth of the argument. The argument is about its significance. Choices are made within the range of possible options, and precisely the argument Sir Peter is asking the Government to address is whether the range of possible options is being narrowed to an unacceptable extent.
There are a few points of drafting to which I should like to draw the Government's attention. Clause 45(2) (c) allows the Secretary of State to revoke the provisions of endowments. The Government heard the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on revoking trust deeds. The point needs consideration. I was also interested in the provisions of Clause 47 which allow the Government to close any designated institution. The Minister may perhaps have shown how that is compatible with the provision of the Act of Union guaranteeing the survival of the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrew's and Aberdeen. I would welcome a little further clarification on that point.
Some further clarification that I would welcome on that point concerns the definition of "university" now used in interpreting that provision of the Act of Union. When the Act of Union was passed, when the foundation statutes of those universities were drawn up, a university meant a research university. Nowadays not all universities are to be research universities. Will the Act of Union guarantee the survival of those four universities as research universities, or will it not?
I shall mention only one other point. I noticed in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum the remark that the Bill has "no EC implications". I am glad that the question has been considered. I wonder whether the answer is correct. There is a good deal of debate with the EC about recognition of educational qualifications. I wonder whether the pursuit of efficiency may cause rather more problems in recognition of our qualifications than the Government are yet aware.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to clarify one point. He referred to Edinburgh University's decision to cease having a chair of history. The university is not closing the whole department. It has decided that the chair is not for the time being necessary. Am I right?
Earl Russell: My Lords, that is my understanding. That is what I said.
12.53 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who said that he had heard the arguments before, that some of them were hackneyed and that the battle lines were drawn. I am delighted to say that I come to this debate rather fresher than that. Perhaps that is one reason why I have enjoyed it so much. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their great courtesy. I thank in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who referred to my grandfather and my father. I always suspect that it must be rather difficult for people who end up in the House of Lords to start dealing with the grandchildren of their former colleagues.
We have certainly had a fruitful debate and I should like to respond to some of the comments that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the competition for research resources. All institutions will be free to compete for resources available from SHEFC. It is our firm policy to allocate resources on the basis of quality assessments, thus rewarding the best. We have made it clear that the new universities and other colleges should not change their primarily teaching emphasis. Thus there is no reason to fear the dilution of research effort, which was suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was concerned that the transfer of property would leave debt charges with authorities. I can reassure him by saying that authorities are reimbursed through the AEF settlement for capital debt charges on a virtually pound for pound basis. That will continue. It is, as I think we will all agree, the most sensible and straightforward approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to student representation. We recognise that students have an important role to play and that is why a representative of the student associations will have a place on the boards. Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. He indicated that it should be the head of the student associations. That will not necessarily be the case. It will usually be the case but may not necessarily be the case. It is up to the students to decide.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an interesting speech. I shall not be drawn with regard to his views of the constitutional question. He will feel instinctively that we disagree on this, although having said that, I suspect that the noble Earl is a firm Unionist. It surprises me that he cannot see that the proposals which his party is thinking of bringing forward, should it win the next general election, would lead to the dissolution of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I cannot allow the noble Lord to get away with that. He knows perfectly well that devolution can be carried out within the framework of the treaty.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course it can be carried out within the framework of the United Kingdom, but it could not continue because of the inevitable pressures that would be created between a

1471
Scottish Parliament and a United Kingdom Parliament. That is a point of fundamental disagreement between people who believe in the Union and those who believe that devolution can continue within the United Kingdom framework.
Earl Russell: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to pay attention to the preservation of the Union of Spain since the 15th century? If he did so, he might understand our case a little better.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is certainly my impression that, in the 20th century, where Catalonia has sought to devolve from the central Spanish institutions it has been deemed to be an overall failure. Perhaps we can get back to the issue of the day and the Second Reading of this Bill.
The noble Earl made the point that colleges should not become self-governing until 1994. Of course 1993 is not far away, and in our view a concentrated time-scale is desirable and achievable. A longer period would only add to blight. There are already signs that authorities' spending on colleges is decreasing, particularly in terms of capital expenditure. The noble Earl referred to the article in today's Independent by the former chief executive of the UFC. We have made increased resources available to universities reflecting the growth in student numbers. There clearly is scope for efficiency savings within the system. There is no evidence of a decline in quality. Indeed, it is true to say that the number of first and second class honours degrees has steadily increased in recent years. The Government see no need to introduce top-up fees although institutions themselves are free to do so if they wish. It is a common fact that United Kingdom student support is the most generous in Europe and we have nothing to be ashamed of on that score.
It came as no surprise that almost every speaker in the debate discussed the situation of academic freedom. I am naturally aware of the continuing concern about the drafting of Clauses 42 and 54 of the Bill on conditions of granting powers and directions respectively. The issues involved are both complex and important. Therefore, it is appropriate that they should receive a high degree of scrutiny both within this House and elsewhere. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made that point. As the Minister of State said in another place, the Government are open to suggestions for further improvement to those clauses. I am willing to consider very carefully the views expressed in this House and also to listen to the views of Scottish higher education interests before determining the best way forward. We have not ruled out further amendments.
I am aware that the Scottish universities continue to be anxious, although we understand that the centrally-funded colleges are content with the Bill as now drafted. We amended both clauses in another place in response to comments from the Scottish universities and members of the standing committee. Whether we have done enough is of course a matter for discussion in this House. I have no doubt that we shall have such discussions as the Bill progresses.
Perhaps I may turn now to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale,
1472
about Mr. Justice Simon Brown. In that case, the Secretary of State was upheld by Mr. Justice Simon Brown.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, surely the noble Lord knows that, although the final decision was in favour of the Government, the construction that the learned judge put on the action was entirely against the Government. That is why these two Bills were introduced in their present forms.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, considered the point that this would be a matter for Scottish law? Has he ascertained whether that judgment would stand in Scots law? I should not have thought that it would, although I am not a lawyer.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I feel slightly out of depth in this particular argument with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Perhaps I should just say that the purpose in drafting the Bill is to clarify the powers and not to change them.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour made a most helpful observation on the Bill. She pointed out that there could be a problem as regards non-Scottish domiciled students at Scottish universities. Because of their good reputation in broad-based educational traditions, universities in Scotland attract a considerable number of students from outside Scotland. Our universities will remain part of the UK education system and will continue to be free to admit whichever applicants they choose. I aim to ensure that the funds which will be transferred to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will reflect Scotland's existing share of student numbers.
I turn now to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the chair of Scottish History. Of course, the noble Earl is absolutely right. He already knows what I am going to say; indeed, he paraphrased it. I have no doubt that the university itself will take note of the anxieties expressed both in this House and elsewhere. I believe that it is wrong to suggest that Edinburgh University has been singled out for harsh treatment, or that its recent financial problems arise from government policy, rather Edinburgh's deficit arises from internal financial management problems. However, I understand that those problems are now being tackled and that a recovery plan is in place; but it is inevitable that some hard decisions will have to be made in the process. The university must live within its means.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have heard government Ministers invoke financial mismanagement on many occasions. But is the noble Lord familiar with the maxim: the first time is happenstance; the second time is coincidence; and the third time it is enemy action?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there are many universities which have not found themselves in the same difficult position as Edinburgh has over the past few years.
In conclusion, I should stress that in the Bill we are creating an efficient and creative system that will meet our pledge to increase still further the number of Scots

1473
of all ages entering further and higher education. We have set ourselves a challenging Bill. However, I am confident that we shall achieve its aims. I look forward to the next stages in the progression of the Bill through the House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
1.5 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Provision for the disabled is no new issue to your Lordships. The House has a proud record of insisting through amendments to proposed legislation that adequate facilities are made available better to integrate disabled people into the mainstream of our economic and social life. The Bill before us today is somewhat different. It is not concerned with a particular area of policy or provision; it is concerned with establishing the basic civil right of disabled people to be treated no less favourably on grounds of their disability than able-bodied people in the areas essential to a full and independent life.
The Bill is not about charity and paternalism; it is about rights. It is now increasingly accepted and recognised that disability is not so much a medical problem or a problem for the individual but rather it concerns the relationship between someone with a disability and his or her environment. By viewing disability as a social issue in that way we are able to focus on the real problem, which is the way that society structures its institutions and the environment.
There is nothing novel in legislation to outlaw discrimination. Many other countries have such legislation relating to disability. In this country we have legislation against sex discrimination and race discrimination. The Bill before us today is constructed on similar lines and would, I suggest, present few problems in implementation because we are now becoming increasingly familiar with applying the concepts of direct, indirect and institutional discrimination—concepts which are embodied in the Bill.
When anti-discrimination legislation was first introduced there was little understanding of those concepts. But we have learnt much in the intervening quarter of a century since the first race relations Act was passed. Those—and at that time there were many —who felt that such legislation was not appropriate for dealing with the problems of disabled people are now having to think again. Indeed, many organisations, including major companies and institutions which are actively pursuing an equal opportunities policy, already include the area of disability in their programmes. I sit on such an equal opportunities committee in the University of Bradford. Perhaps here the Minister—whose right honourable colleague in another place is on record as saying that he is
1474
benevolently neutral to the Bill but prefers the route of persuasion—might be tempted to ask: if attitudes are changing, why choose legislation?
There are a number of reasons for that choice. First, attitudes are not changing quickly enough. There is still an unacceptable level of widespread discrimination against the 6.5 million disabled people in the country. Much of that discrimination is unintentional and unrecognised as such by those responsible. The evidence is familiar to us all. I do not want to dwell for long on that aspect today but perhaps I may remind your Lordships of a few points.
On employment, disabled people are three times more likely to be out of work than non-disabled people. When they leave a job, they face longer periods of unemployment. Only 13 per cent. of disabled people are in professional or managerial positions, compared with 21 per cent. of the general population. Disabled people's earnings are also lower —approximately half the average wage, £100 per week compared with something like £250 per week.
On the environment, disabled people have to face inaccessible homes, transport and services generally. Over 4 million people have mobility-related problems and yet there are only 80,000 accessible homes in the country. As we are aware, most buses, taxis and trains are inaccessible or largely inaccessible to the disabled.
On leisure, not only are many restaurants, pubs, theatres, galleries, cinemas and sports halls inaccessible to disabled people; all can openly deny disabled people the right to enjoy such facilities, as was reported in the press recently when a person in a wheel chair who from time to time made noises because of her disability was asked to leave a concert hall. Many disabled people are not allowed to enter places of leisure without a minder and some are not admitted at all.
On education, despite the Education Act 1981 which provided for children to be educated, if possible, in mainstream schools, the decrease in the number of children being educated in special schools has been less than 1 per cent. in the intervening 11 years. Many local authorities have increased the number of pupils placed in special schools. In all those areas the evidence is overwhelming.
Secondly, even in organisations which have an equal opportunities policy, should that policy be infringed a disabled person has no right of legal redress. Thus, a disabled person when discriminated against is at a disadvantage compared with non-disabled persons who have been discriminated against because they have legal redress. The Bill would enable us to focus more sharply upon the growing understanding of the concepts of discrimination and on the barriers faced by disabled people.
I shall interpose a remark which would have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, who wanted to speak in the debate but who was unable to do so because of its timing. He left a note for me just before the debate began saying that through his activities as a patron of SENSE—an organisation which helps deaf-blind people—he came across a case of a deaf-blind man in his thirties who was dumb to the degree that he delivered his speech in a monotone

1475
and relied heavily upon hand communications. He went into his bank to renew his bank card, whereupon he was told, "You won't need that. You can't get out to buy things for yourself". That was odd, because until then he had been doing so for some time. He immediately left the bank and went to a nearby rival bank. That rival bank provided him not just with an account and a bank card but a member of its staff trained in hand language could communicate with deaf-blind people. The noble Lord's colleague was then able to obtain financial advice from the bank, and he was reassured that at least one bank recognised that he had a brain that functioned and a mind that was not disabled. Banks and other institutions can lose credibility and possibly customers if they behave in that way.
The third reason for accepting the Bill is that legislation establishes a benchmark by which standards can be judged. It protects those who on their own initiative seek to eliminate discrimination in their organisations; it protects them against those who might seek to exploit the weak position of disabled people in other organisations; in other words, it provides the level playing field about which we hear so much in other contexts.
Fourthly, legislation would not mean that there was no role for education and persuasion. On the contrary, they would have an enhanced role. Standards established by law are in themselves educational. Moreover, a main function of the proposed disablement commission is to expose discrimination and to provide guidance on good practice.
The Bill is divided into five parts and has one schedule. Part I provides the essential definitions which determine who is covered by the new provisions of the Bill. Part II makes detailed provisions in the field of employment, providing disabled persons who are otherwise qualified with new rights to equal treatment in relation to every state of the recruitment, promotion and dismissal process. Here I emphasise the words, "who are otherwise qualified". It does not, for example, expect, shall we say, that a blind person should be given the job of driving a public service vehicle. If the person is qualified in other ways, equal treatment will be his entitlement.
Part II also creates a new right for the disabled to require an employer to make reasonable accommodation for that disability by adapting or modifying the workplace or conditions under which the person will work. Again, the operative words are "reasonable accommodation". No one, for example, would expect an employer to bankrupt himself merely to accommodate a disabled person. The requirements have to be reasonable and must be justified by the employer as reasonable.
Part III covers the provision of a wide range of goods, facilities and services. It also requires businesses, organisations and bodies which provide those services to make reasonable accommodation for the disabilities of the person wanting to use the services. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, is apposite here.
1476
Part IV establishes the means by which the new personal civil rights are enforced: by proceedings for injunction and damages through the county courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the sheriff courts in Scotland.
Part V of the Bill is concerned with various miscellaneous provisions. The schedule is concerned with the detailed provisions for establishing the disablement commission which would be responsible for helping the disabled to identify discrimination, to investigate cases of discrimination and to provide codes of practice in order to promote equality and good policies.
In 1976 a working party on integrating the disabled, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, said:
"Integration for the disabled means a thousand things. It means the absence of segregation. It means social acceptance. It means being able to be treated like everyone else. It means the right to work, to go to cinemas, to enjoy outdoor sport, to have a family life and a social life and a love life, to contribute materially to the community, to have the usual choices of association, involvement and activity, to go on holiday to the usual places, to be educated up to university level with one's unhandicapped peers, to travel without fuss on public transport."
That is exactly what the Bill today is all about. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Lockwood.)
1.22 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the cogent and sincere way in which she moved the Second Reading of the Bill. It is the brainchild of the right honourable gentleman, the Member for Wythenshawe, Mr. Alf Morris. I have had the pleasure of knowing him for years in another capacity, as the chairman of the Anzac Parliamentary Group. When he was Minister for the Disabled in the last Labour Government, the right honourable gentleman did a great deal for the disabled. I believe that the Bill has no chance of reaching the statute book at this stage and there are undoubtedly shortcomings, as in any Private Member's Bill. However, I think that the Government should give it serious thought.
I am a member of the all-party Parliamentary Disablement Group. Although I must say that I go to meetings rather infrequently because of other commitments, I have attended some meetings. I was present at one attended by my right honourable friend the Minister and I know that he has the disabled of the country very much in mind.
There is no doubt that we are all likely to be disabled at some time in our lives, whatever the stratum of society from which we come. Therefore, this subject needs the consideration of the whole country. In another place, the Bill received support from all sides of the House. Unhappily, it was talked out. Although it is the convention not to criticise the other place in this House, I thought it was an appalling decision, whatever views there may have been on the matter.
I happen to live in an area of Surrey where there are a number of institutions for the disabled, including the

1477
Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Victoria Homes for the disabled. Our local theatre in Leatherhead, the Thorndike Theatre, has excellent facilities for the disabled, but West End theatres are among the worst. It must be said that it is not the fault of any government. In times gone by, architects seemed almost to take the view that there was no such thing as disabled people. The problem is the financial constraints, whether they come from central or local government or from charities. It is difficult to finance facilities for making old buildings, such as some of our theatres, practical for disabled people. It is a crying shame that, merely because a person is disabled, perhaps having served his or her country, he or she cannot enjoy the pleasant things of life such as the theatre or a concert. This should not happen simply because a building is not adapted for disabled people.
A few years ago I went on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Australia. We looked at the Opera House in Sydney, a relatively new building, architecturally perhaps controversial although the outside is quite imaginative. One of the first questions I asked the young public relations manager taking us round inside was: "Judy, what facilities are there for the disabled?" There was a long silence because my understanding is that there was just one lift in this new theatre. That is in a country like Australia which, with New Zealand, has done a great deal for the disabled.
The Bill is wide ranging. An important clause is Clause 6, which enumerates the organisations that, as I understand it, should make mandatory provision for the disabled. I believe that much of the clause is extremely sound, particularly as regards hotels. In some hotels, bedroom facilities are not found below the fourth floor. This is particularly true in Scandinavia. It happens that my wife suffers from arthritis. She also has a heart flutter and finds it difficult to go above two floors, particularly as she was trapped in a lift during the last war: hell's angels will not get her into a lift now. There are people who are far more disabled than that and I hope that the Government will take the matter on board.
On the other side of the coin there are organisations such as the Royal British Legion, and, as county president of the Surrey branch, I must declare an interest. At Maidstone the organisation provides employment in its workshops, and I believe that Remploy has quite a large factory in Wales and employs a number of disabled people. There are also the Star and Garter Homes at Richmond, of which my late uncle was president for some years.
The real problem with this and any other Bill is enforcement. The Government take the view that the voluntary sector can and should do much. I do not believe that people would quarrel with that, but we are in an age where people are living longer, an age of violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. People can become disabled. We must face this fact. The Bill has no chance of being passed in this Session, and may need amendment, some provisions may lead to enormous legal problems. Nevertheless I hope that this Government or any government that may come in
1478
after the election will not say, "This is just another Bill". At the moment the Government are—to use that marvellous expression—benevolently neutral. I do not quarrel with that view at this stage because there are problems of enforcement. However, the aim of the Bill is extremely worth while and all governments should recognise that.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, there could have been no one more suitable to introduce this Bill today than the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I can well recall that when I was chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board I went to see the noble Baroness when she was appointed to take charge of the newly—created Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss with her discrimination against women in the pensions world. That issue is still unresolved and I can only hope that, whatever the fate of this Bill, the proposition it puts forward will achieve a rather speedier solution.
As a background to the Bill it is worth recalling, as the noble Baroness pointed out, that it is calculated that there are something over 6 million people in this country with some degree of physical or mental disability. The merit of this Bill, modelled as it is on existing legislation dealing with discrimination on grounds of sex or race, and taking account of experience gained under existing legislation, is that it would for the first time give disabled people a remedy if they are discriminated against in employment, housing, transport, leisure facilities and other areas.
When a comparable Bill was discussed in another place, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made it clear—anyone who knows him would expect this—that he was perfectly well aware that there was too much unjustified discrimination against disabled people and that this could have a cruel impact on their quality of life as well as being wasteful of ability and talent. However, the Minister remained benevolently neutral on the Bill, perhaps a shade more neutral than benevolent. He argued in effect that legislation was premature and that more time should be given to education and persuasion. He also suggested that the organisations concerned with the disabled were not united in thinking that legislation was called for. I am bound to say that is not altogether my impression.
Some 13 organisations concerned with the disabled got together and launched a manifesto last summer which pleaded for legislation. My postbag suggests that there is a wide measure of agreement among, at any rate, the great majority of organisations concerned, in favour of legislation on the lines of the present Bill. There is indeed a strong feeling that the time has come for something positive to be done and that it has become evident that it is not sufficient to rest on education and persuasion. Something has been achieved certainly but it is not nearly enough.
I wish to use as an example some research done for the Spastics Society which bears on the provisions about employment in Part II of the Bill. In 1986 the society carried out a study which showed beyond dispute that disabled people faced discrimination at

1479
the point of initial application for a job. When this study was repeated in 1990 the results were almost identical to those of the first study. There was no evidence that in the years between the attitude of employers had changed.
The Minister referred in the other place to initiatives by the Employers Forum on Disability, but one can perhaps be forgiven for having a shade of doubt as to how far and how quickly those initiatives will affect attitudes. I appreciate that there is a quota system for all but the small firms for the employment of the disabled. However, even the Department of Employment, skilled as it is in seeing a golden lining to every fresh announcement of increased unemployment, would be hard put to demonstrate that the quota system is actually working. That there is scope for greater employment, for example, of the mentally handicapped, has been shown by the experience of Mencap's Pathway Employment Scheme which has placed in full-time open employment over 2,000 people who previously had no work opportunities.
It seems to me that employers looking at the Bill can take comfort from the careful provisions made in it to which the noble Baroness referred. Those provisions are designed to ensure that employers would not be obliged to make unreasonable changes to accommodation in order to make it possible for disabled people to be taken into employment. Incidentally, I share some of the doubts which have been expressed about whether the county court is the right forum for any application relating to employment, whatever may be applicable to the rest of the Bill. However, that is a point of comparative detail.
As well as problems with employment, there are problems of discrimination in all the other areas covered by the Bill. It is a matter of great regret to my noble friend Lord Rix that a previous commitment in the United States has kept him away from the debate today. If he were here, I expect he would have reminded us that he discovered that the BBC will not allow parties of mentally handicapped people into studio audiences because, so it is said, of fire regulations.
I wish to refer to transport as regards disabled people. Quite a lot has been achieved in this area, but the Minister in another place readily agreed that there was still a long way to go. There are still thousands of handicapped people who cannot use the buses or the long-distance coaches, but who would be able to do so if some changes of design and equipment were made. Highway authorities could well provide more dropped kerbs and more tactile and audible signs at crossing places.
Even British Rail, which I believe has been trying in this area, still has too many stations which are pretty well inaccessible to the physically disabled. Travelling in the guard's van with the baggage is still by no means an unusual experience for the wheelchair user. Examples of discrimination abound in the leisure facilities and other activities covered by the Bill. As the noble Baroness has explained, not only are various restaurants, pubs, cinemas and other places inaccessible for the physically disabled, but there is also
1480
nothing to stop the managements of such places from openly denying disabled people the opportunity to use and enjoy such facilities, and they do.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, mention the Sydney Opera House. I can bear out to the last comma everything he said about the total unsuitability of access there as regards disabled people. I would add that access is also unsuitable for able-bodied people. Coming closer to home, I cannot help remembering that when the new offices in Richmond Terrace were reconstructed at enormous expense to house, of all departments, the Department of Health, we discovered when we went there with my noble friend Lady Masham, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will recall, that no facilities of any kind had been provided as regards access for wheelchair users.
No one imagines that the problems of discrimination can be solved by legislation. No Act of Parliament will deter the thoughtless motorist who parks his car halfway on the pavement so that it is impossible to get by with a wheelchair. But legislation, backed by a disablement commission, can help to force employers and others to think about what they should be doing. It can bring to light hitherto unsuspected examples of indirect discrimination, as experience elsewhere has shown. It can give reassurance to the good employer, highway authority or restaurant owner that others will not get away with lower standards. The need for education, encouragement and increasing awareness would not be reduced, but it would be powerfully reinforced.
This Government have made it fashionable to promote charters on behalf of the citizen. This Bill would go a long way towards becoming a charter for the disabled. I hope that it will be given a Second Reading.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has made a very powerful case in support of the Bill presented by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. I want to congratulate her not only on seizing this opportunity of parliamentary time but also on giving a very clear explanation of what the Bill provides. That means that we do not have to do so in our supporting speeches. She is an admirable advocate, with her experience of fighting against discrimination on the grounds of sex, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. There is a similarity between the two cases and the Bill recognises that similarity.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that it was deplorable that Alf Morris's Bill was talked out on 31st January 1992 in another place despite the fact that it was an all-party Bill. Alf Morris was an exceptional advocate for the Bill, with his 25 years' commitment to helping society to meet the needs of disabled people. I well remember—and if he were present he would also recall—that in 1969, when I was Minister of State for Health and Social Security, he was lucky in the ballot and came to me with his draft Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons' Bill, which turned out to be a landmark in the welfare of disabled

1481
people. He wanted to include everything in that Bill. If everything had been included it would have broken the bank. I had to tell him that there were certain conditions under which our Government could give him support. We did a deal: for every costly measure which I asked him to delete I gave him a new and important measure in the field of non-discrimination. The right honourable gentleman is a very amenable man but very tough, and on that basis we were able to come to a deal. If he reads the report of this debate, I can assure him that we shall facilitate his next attempt.
What is the situation now? In another place the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People claimed, as has been said, that he took a position of benevolent neutrality. I thought that that was a misnomer. He was very benevolent but it was benevolent opposition. He made it perfectly clear that he did not think it appropriate or that the time had come for a Bill dealing with these provisions. I cannot accept that the time has not come. If ever the time was right it is now.
The question is, is legislation needed? My noble friend Lady Lockwood has given many examples of discrimination. I was very interested in the recently published findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I need not repeat any of the points which my noble friend made regarding that study.
In 1979, Alf Morris as Minister for the Disabled and I as Secretary of State for Social Services (proud to be in a sense his godfather) set up the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People with an old friend of many of us here, Peter Large, as its chairman. The committee reported in 1982 that there was a need for legislation. That plea was rejected by the then Secretary of State for Social Services. It was rather like the position regarding the Black Report: I set up a committee which reported its recommendations to a successor Secretary of State which were rejected. That is one of the sad aspects of our democratic system in which we move from government to government. However, perhaps we can reverse the situation.
In support of the Bill Mr. Large has written:
"We have thus already waited 10 years for this legislation, losing 10 years hoping that education and persuasion and the voluntary application of goodwill would eventually transform disabled people's lives. We now know they will not. We were right to believe that campaigns to educate and persuade are too costly and ineffective in the absence of a legislative foundation of acceptable behaviour."
He did not argue the case against education and promotion; he said that without the backing of legislation education and promotion are greatly undermined.
I was delighted to see that Sir John Wilson, chairman of the Impact Foundation, of which I am proud to be a council member, sent Alf Morris the message:
"Good luck for your Private Members' Bill on Anti-Discrimination next Friday. We will all be rooting for you!".
I am certain that he will have sent the same message to my noble friend who brings forward the Bill.
There is a great deal of support for the Bill among organisations for the disabled, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said. A recent survey by the British
1482
Council of Organisations of Disabled People, which consists of representatives of the many organisations representing disabled people, found that 6 per cent. of British employers were unwilling to employ any disabled people under any circumstances at a time when employable disabled people are six times more likely than non-disabled people to be turned down for a job. Even though there is legislation which is supposed to deal with quotas it applies only to certain categories of firms. There is a great deal of discrimination.
I should like to pay tribute to the enormous amount of work which the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, has done for disabled people. It would have been splendid if he had been able to speak in the debate but he is not in his place today. The noble Earl made an important speech in your Lordships' House in which he referred to the shameful treatment of a young policewoman injured, ironically, while displaying conspicuous bravery in the course of her duties who was turned away from a charity event because, and only because, she was in a wheelchair.
What about the conduct of taxi drivers who refuse to carry blind people if they have guide dogs with them, as now happens from time to time? What about the practice of employers who never research any job applicant who discloses a disability? The research by the Spastics Society referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, showed that non-disabled candidates were 1.5 times more likely to be offered a job than disabled candidates.
Does legislation help? I believe that it does. Of course legislation is not the only answer. It is only part of the answer. One can look at the experience in education, public awareness, good practice guidelines and the concept of equal opportunities employers and equal opportunities housing agencies. That is all extremely good but it is not enough. It must be backed by legislative power.
One could say that in relation to many other areas. For example, we have debated many times whether the poll tax is good or bad, but if there had been no requirement for people to pay the poll tax it would not be a question of a few million people not paying; nobody in the world would have paid. There had to be legislative backing. Racial discrimination is another example. As a Back-Bencher new to Parliament in 1965 I was involved in promoting the first race relations law which was carried. I was a Minister in the Home Office in 1967 when we passed the second Act on race relations. It has made an impact. It does not mean that there is no discrimination but it has meant that it is known to be illegal and the law has had an effect, in the same way as legislation against sex discrimination has had an effect.
I could give another example of seat-belts, in which I had a particular interest. As a Back-Bencher it was my amendment to a transport Bill which finally made seat-belts compulsory. That was after years and millions of pounds had been spent trying to persuade the public that they ought to wear seat-belts. People said that it was a restriction of their freedom. Of course it was. If my noble friend's Bill is carried that will be a restriction on freedom—on the human

1483
freedom to be prejudiced to discriminate against disabled people. Certainly people knew that that is what society felt should be done. Hundreds of lives have been saved as a result of seat-belt legislation. Another example is drink-driving. When my noble friend Lady Castle, was Minister of Transport, she introduced the breath test. She and I, and no doubt most of us, would now go further and make breath tests mandatory.
There is a great deal of evidence that legislation does not solve problems. Legislation backed up by education, promotion and publicity is needed. I do not want to go into the details of the proposed legislation: my noble friend did that very ably. The Bill could be improved in Committee and, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, it seems likely that it will not be carried through before the general election. Earlier in the day the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he did not know the date of the election. It is about time that the Prime Minister told us the date so that we can all go ahead with planning our lives. The only man who knows it is the Prime Minister. Why should he not share that knowledge with the rest of the nation? We all have an interest in it.
The Bill will pave the way for what happens after the election. I have no doubt that at some stage the Prime Minister will get around to fixing the date of the election. After the election we shall see what the situation is. I am certain that eventually the Bill will become law.
I was very touched with the quotation made by Alf Morris in another place when he moved the Second Reading of his Bill. He cited a Spastics Society advertisement which showed a picture of two babies and he quoted the caption: "One of them has cerebral palsy, the other will grow up with full human rights". He said that that was the purpose of the Bill. That is the purpose of my noble friend's Bill.
1.52 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on her clear and comprehensive explanation of the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale that, with her wide experience she was the ideal person to introduce it. She speaks not just from the relatively narrow perspective of disability. She sets the Bill in the context of society and discrimination as a whole. As the noble Baroness said, it is a society which is now more at home with the concept of equal opportunities. She wound up with powerful words from the Snowdon Report, and I am delighted that the noble Earl is with us today.
There has been a shift in attitude on the part of the Government toward legislating on this issue. On 31st January at the abortive Second Reading of Alf Morris's Bill in another place, the Minister for disabled people, said that he wished to encourage education and raise awareness. He added—and this is where I find the shift in attitude:
"In the longer term, I do not rule out a return to the legislative approach if the approach that I am commending to the House does not work".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/92; col. 1256.]
1484
I shall not give instances of discrimination or argue the need, because others have already done so. I shall just give one or two reasons why I think legislation would be helpful and why we should not be afraid of it. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke of CORAD (the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People) which was set up by Alf Morris under the chairmanship of Peter Large. Its main recommendation was for legislation to make discrimination on the grounds of disability illegal. The scope and nature of the proposed legislation was basically as is now set out in the Bill before us. CORAD realised that neither legislation nor education alone would solve the problem of discrimination; both are needed.
I should like to highlight three points from CORAD's report in favour of legislation. First, education campaigns on their own are expensive and rarely very successful. In 1979 two national campaigns to make people wear seat belts cost £1.8 million. Both campaigns failed, in the absence of legislation. Secondly, while legislation will not make people love each other, it can make them behave properly toward each other and that in turn can influence attitudes for good. Thirdly, legislation would ensure that any cost or effort involved in treating the disabled properly is spread more evenly. Without legislation, those lacking in goodwill would gain an advantage over those who put themselves out to help disabled people. I echo what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, to the effect that legislation provides a benchmark for good behaviour.
We must recognise that people with disabilities are not naturally more litigious than anyone else. The purpose of the Bill is not to take everyone to court. Indeed, it could be agreed that, if a complaint gets that far, it is a lost case so far as concerns human relations and a just society. Experience from abroad—for example, South Australia, New South Wales and the United States—shows the law as a background against which settlements and adjustments can be agreed and education and persuasion can flourish. In fact, New South Wales has had legislation for some time, but I am fairly sure that the Sydney Opera House was built before the legislation was introduced.
I believe that the Bill before us would provide a firm foundation for cost-effective campaigns of education and persuasion, about which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, spoke most persuasively. The masterly explanation of the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, stressed the importance of safeguarding the definition of the qualified person and also the test of reasonableness. The Minister raised objections at Second Reading in the other place on the matter of the county courts and wondered whether the test should be of reasonableness or justifiable discrimination. I am sure that we could discuss those points at a Committee stage; it would be extremely useful.
Your Lordships have recently been bombarded with amendments and debates about people with disabilities, children with special educational needs and students with learning difficulties. On the Further and Higher Education Bill the Government were extremely helpful in accepting and bringing forward amendments which they recognised as sensible or

1485
necessary. I hope that, if this Bill is enacted, many of those smaller amendments of a prodding or reminding nature would no longer be necessary and noble Lords would feel less besieged by disability issues.
CORAD reported its findings in February 1982, which is exactly 10 years ago. How well have education and persuasion succeeded over those 10 years? The noble Baroness ended by quoting from the Snowdon Report and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, ended by quoting from the Spastics Society. I should like to return to the Second Reading on 31st January 1992 in the other place and quote more words from the Minister for disabled people. He said:
"We all know that there is still too much unjustified discrimination against disabled people. We know that that is wrong and often has a cruel impact on the quality of life of disabled people. It is also remarkably stupid, because the wealth of ability and talent that disabled people have to offer —a variety of enterprise in society—is significant, and it is a waste of those talents if they suffer unjustifiable discrimination".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/92; col. 1251.]
We should give this Bill a Second Reading.
1.58 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, on these Benches we warmly welcome the Bill although we fully realise the difficulties that it faces in becoming a reality on the statute book. In particular, we welcome the philosophy behind the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have a detailed package of proposed legislation—should they ever be in a position to introduce it—to deal with disability generally. A number of the subjects dealt with by the noble Baroness's Bill are part of the package that we would put forward, to which we would add adequate income for disabled people and the proper implementation of the 1986 disability Act.
So far as the disabled are concerned, the subject of discrimination is quite a difficult one. There is no doubt that discrimination exists. My own father was for 40 years quite visibly disabled as a result of polio. He said that throughout his life he had never come across any active discrimination as such, although he did encounter lack of imagination from time to time.
For someone who is visibly handicapped—someone who, like my father, loses the use of his legs and walks with sticks —there is often considerable help from individuals from the most surprising quarters. I remember that in the 1950s he caught one of his sticks in a moving escalator on the London Underground. Much to his dismay, he was approached by a group of fairly forbidding young people who at that time were described as Teddy Boys. He was most astonished when they lifted him bodily from his position of embarrassment and took him to another place, with great concern for his future welfare. He was most impressed by that incident and others during his life.
I believe that other noble Lords have mentioned deafness. Where disability is not so visible or marked, it is necessary for employers in particular to ensure that their younger employees are made aware of such disabilities. Perhaps through lack of time, lack of imagination or lack of education they may not be aware that someone who is deaf or blind has particular difficulties.
1486
The noble Baroness conveyed to us the story of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It is interesting because it tells us much about banks and their employees. I should like to know the name of the bank which reacted so positively after the bank that was so deficient. It would not want my overdraft; but if I were in a position to do so I should like to transfer my business to that bank. It was an example of a young man, probably under the pressure of a new job, whose immediate reaction when faced with someone who was both blind and deaf was, "You won't have need for the use of a bank card". That shows lack of imagination on his part but also lack of training and foresight on the part of the employer. It was a valuable example of the kind of corporate action that is needed.
The noble Baroness discussed the various aspects of the Bill most thoroughly and clearly. I do not wish to repeat them. From my observation and experience, there are certain skills in employment which disabled people have which are superior to those of people who are not disabled. I do not consider just piano tuners —an obvious example—but physiotherapists. Physiotherapists have an enormous ability to use their hands. They are often blind. I heard of a case some time ago—I hope that it does not prevail today; other noble Lords will know the answer better than I do —when it was difficult for physiotherapists to go into hospitals to apply their skills, which were much needed, because hospitals would not allow guide dogs into the premises. I hope that that situation does not prevail today. If it does, it is an aspect that needs attending to under the noble Baroness's Bill.
The questions of leisure and access to recreation and the arts are most important. Recently I was asked to go to a presentation by an organisation for the blind relating to transport. I found myself seated between two elderly ladies who had been blind from birth. I have an interest in the cinema and the theatre. To my surprise both said that they liked going to the cinema and theatre equally. That may surprise some people. With the cinema being a visual medium one might consider it of no interest to blind people; but that is not so. Noble Lords have referred to the fact that many cinema managers do not show the care and imagination needed. Perhaps it is because cinemas were not built in the first place with the access required for people in wheelchairs. But the excuse about the fire risk which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to is trotted out as a reason for not allowing disabled people to enter a cinema, whether they are blind, have lost the use of legs or have other disabilities.
Although I do not go to race courses these days for many different reasons, I notice that the facilities for disabled people have very much improved. The management has to be congratulated on that. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, nods; I know that he has an interest in that sport. Such improvement is encouraging. I hope that it is not the bookmakers who have arranged those improved facilities. Nevertheless it is heartening to consider that many disabled people now have the possibility of a day out and are able to see an excellent sport at close quarters.
One also has to consider art galleries and theatres. Indeed, new book shops need more thought in

1487
planning. I noticed that the refurbishment of a well-known bookshop in the West End has been undertaken with obvious thought for the disabled. That again is heartening.
It appears that much is being done for the disabled, but that does not mean that we do not require the noble Baroness's Bill. I am sorry that it is unlikely to reach the statute book. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that if the fashion for charters continues—although I hope that it does not—as a charter for the disabled the Bill would be absolutely ideal.
2.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for moving so well the Second Reading of this important Bill. As is the convention, I make it clear that although I speak from the Dispatch Box I speak from a personal view. However, my party supports the principle of anti-discrimination on disability legislation.
In debating the need for the Bill, we should consider what we mean by discrimination and how it comes about. In looking through the dictionaries in your Lordships' Library I was interested to read the examples that they gave of discrimination. There is not a single mention of discrimination on the ground of disability—it is always on the ground of race, sex or colour—although, as we know, there are more than 6 million disabled people.
What causes able-bodied people and society in general to discriminate against people with disabilities? There are many reasons. Some are psychological, the deep-seated fear of that which appears not to be normal or is unknown. That fear goes back through history. The Old Testament Book of Leviticus reiterates the physical and mental perfection that is necessary for all aspects of religious ritual. During the Middle Ages disability was associated with evil and witchcraft. Physical or mental impairment was deemed to be the punishment of a parent's wrongdoing. Visits to Bedlam were a common form of amusement. Even today one can see on television some performers who try to exploit disabilities in order to raise laughs.
In terms of culture there is the attitude of society as a whole. There is economic discrimination in employment. As regards income, we know that disabled people are poorer than the able-bodied because that has been shown by the OPCS and the surveys carried out by the Disablement Income Group. Education rests on the concept of a special need outside the mainstream of education. Indeed, often expectations are so low that one feels that special education is aimed at producing a generation of telephonists, audio typists and lift attendants. Disabled people are more likely to be out of work and for longer periods, and if they have employment it is usually work of low pay and of low status. However, this is neither the place nor the time for a detailed discussion of the whole area of benefits for disability.
We believe, as do many people, that the only social and just means for providing benefits for disabled people is a combination of a disability cost allowance
1488
and a disability income allowance. That will be a long battle but I am sure that eventually the justice of the argument will prevail. It is a long-term target of the next Labour Government to shift the balance of benefits towards the ultimate objective of a comprehensive disability cost and income allowance. It will take longer than the lifetime of one Parliament to achieve that.
The whole attitude of society towards people with disabilities is that they are unable to take charge of their own lives. That is seen as being a job for able-bodied professionals. There have been references to discrimination in leisure and in social activities. There has been widespread discrimination in terms of access and attitude. In my experience, some restaurants will not allow in guide dogs, saying that it will affect the other customers. Theatres, cinemas and, it seems, the BBC will not allow in wheelchairs because of the risk of fire. A seaside resort banned a group of mentally handicapped people because it was felt that they would upset other visitors.
There is an interesting example of the muddled and patronising attitude professionals can so easily adopt.The Disability Handbook, an excellent publication, deals with the care needs and mobility requirements likely to arise from various disabilities and chronic illnesses. It is produced by The Benefits Agency Medical Services and is written by six doctors. In Chapter 2, which deals with the presentation of disability, the paragraph headed "Underrepresentation of disability" states:
"Many carers, particularly those looking after people with severe learning disability, work extremely hard to make the disabled person appear as independent as possible. For example, they may work for months or even years to teach the person how to go to the local shop on their own. This independence is an illusion—any deviation from the 'norm' will expose the true extent of the continuing care and supervision being exercised in the background. These people only appear to function because of the highly structured environment which has been created for them."
Under the heading "Overrepresentation of disability" the handbook states:
"This occurs less frequently than underrepresentation. However, there are still situations where disability may appear to be in excess of that expected … In the long run, this can be detrimental to the disabled person by preventing them from achieving whatever independence they might manage."
That is an example of the muddled and patronising attitude which can occur even among professionals.
There is a legion of examples of attitude. For instance, a television presenter praised a disabled lad for his bravery because, as he said, "He is not even in a wheelchair". The presenter thereby automatically devalued every other child with the same condition who is in a wheelchair. A headline in the Sun newspaper used the word "spastic" as a term of insult. A recent disgraceful advertisement in the Guardian showed Britannia in a wheelchair in order to illustrate an economy in decline. There is the use of able-bodied actors and actresses to portray people with disabilities while so many disabled actors and actresses can easily play the parts. Such examples are legion. They show conclusively that education and persuasion are not enough. Therefore, a Bill such as that which we are considering is long overdue.

1489
Unemployment, low income, dependence on benefits, a hostile physical environment and ingrained social attitudes conspire together to discriminate against people with disabilities. There must be positive discrimination in favour of people with disabilities to redress the balance. That needs the backing of legislation to enshrine the essential move from consideration of individual needs to active promotion of individual social rights. A combination of charity and the social services is not enough.
The Bill has been extremely well explained by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. It is a good start on what is likely to be a long road. There is no need for me to go through the Bill in detail.
The first Motion that I ever moved in your Lordships' House was to draw attention to the needs and problems of people with disabilities. In that debate I coined the phrase "the disabled divide" to describe the great gulf in expectation and achievement between people with disabilities and the able-bodied. If enacted this Bill will go a long way towards bridging that divide or, in the words of President Bush when he signed the American Disabilities Act in 1990:
"Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down."
2.14 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness on introducing the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which has allowed us to have what all your Lordships would agree has been an extremely useful debate on a wide range of fundamental issues which affect people with disabilities. I thank the noble Baroness for emphasising the very proud record which we have in this House in this sphere.
Establishing the means to overcome the barriers which people with disabilities still face in their everyday lives is an extremely important subject which crosses party political boundaries. I begin by quoting from a speech made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in another place on 31st January. I apologise to the House for repeating the quotation because the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has already quoted the same passage which I wish to quote. However, it is useful to convey how we feel on these matters. My right honourable friend said:
"There is much common ground between the parties in the House. We all know that there is still too much unjustified discrimination against disabled people. We know that that is wrong and often has a cruel impact on the quality of life of disabled people. It is also remarkably stupid, because the wealth of ability and talent that disabled people have to offer —a variety of enterprise in society—is significant, and it is a waste of those talents if they suffer unjustifiable discrimination."
At the risk of being criticised for borrowing too much of the speech of my right honourable friend perhaps I may quote another short passage because I do not believe that I could express the point better myself. My right honourable friend went on to say:
"There is no difference of opinion in the House about the ends that we seek: the integration of disabled people, their independence and their participation in a range of activities …
1490
recreation and sport. Above all, we want them to have control over their own lives".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/92; cols. 1251 and 1256].
I associate myself wholeheartedly with those sentiments.
We do not deny that discrimination still exists. At the same time I believe that the situation has improved over the past few years. I am convinced that it will continue to improve because we are all committed to seeing that it does. This Government will continue to work to achieve the objectives so succinctly described by my right honourable friend.
Mention has been made of the Bill introduced in another place by Mr. Alf Morris; several noble Lords referred to its fate. I do not believe that the procedures of another place are a matter for this House but I should point out that in another place the Bill had nearly two hours of debate. Even had it received a Second Reading when it was introduced, with the general election approaching it could not have completed its passage through Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows that I do not know when the election will be, as I said earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the election were to be in June or July, surely there would be enough time for the Bill to complete its passage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was going on to say that I believe all noble Lords would agree that the Bill would have needed substantial amendment in both Houses. It would have received quite long Committee and Report stages and Third Reading. It is unlikely that time would have been found to get a Bill through, whatever the timing of the election. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows when the election will be but, as I said earlier, I have not the first idea of the date.
As I have said already, we have considerable sympathy with the thinking behind the Bill. We shall give it serious thought, as my noble kinsman Lord Auckland asked us to do. However, we have always made it absolutely clear that we wish to see the elimination of discrimination. We have a good record of working towards that end both by influencing the way people think and by legislating in particular areas where that is necessary. I must say to the House, however, that despite everything that has been said today, and however much I wish to see the elimination of discrimination against people with disabilities, I remain unconvinced that this Bill is the right measure to achieve that at this time.
Many acts of apparent discrimination against disabled people on the grounds of their disability arise through ignorance and thoughtlessness rather than ill will. Too often, prejudice and pre-conceived ideas about what a disabled person can or cannot do act as a barrier to employment or integration in other spheres of life. We must continue to improve awareness of ability and to remove the negative aspects of disability. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, quoted the example provided by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, of the young man who was both deaf and blind being refused a bank card by one bank and having to go to another. The first bank lost a

1491
customer through its ignorance; the second bank certainly gained a customer through acting with sympathy and understanding. It may also have the luck of gaining the overdraft of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, should it wish to have it and should we discover its name. However, would legislation have made the first bank any more enlightened? I suspect not. Banks and other institutions will change their attitudes as they learn that it is in their interests as well as the interests of the disabled so to do.
We have improved opportunities in many areas for people with disabilities in this country in recent years and we shall continue to work to bring about the changes in attitudes and improved awareness among the general public which are an essential step in achieving full integration. We shall continue to introduce concrete measures, including specific, targeted legislation where necessary.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), for her comments concerning amendments which were accepted to the Further and Higher Education Bill. I cite also the package we produced in the Local Government Finance Bill for those who are disabled and the reliefs to be provided in that field.
In this country we have a good record on such measures. I am sure that the House will forgive me for not describing all of them in detail. Many points were put forward which require a certain amount of detailed response. But I am sure that noble Lords will accept that there is no need for me, for example, to respond on the question of the Sydney Opera House, for which I have no responsibility. However, perhaps I may briefly refer to the complaints made about the building in which the headquarters of both my department and the Department of Health are held —Richmond House. If there were problems for wheelchair access in the past, they have to some extent been eased, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, will confirm—she has been to my room to see me on occasions. I hope that we shall continue to move forward in the same way in other areas.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the point was that when the building was designed in the first place, with all the expertise that went into it, and when the building was to house the two departments most concerned with disability, nobody thought to make it accessible to wheelchairs. The department then had to go to considerable expense to make it accessible.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord has the wrong end of the stick. As I understand it, it was not originally intended to house the Departments of Health and Social Security. But, as he said, that is not the point. Whatever department it was intended to move in, wheelchair access should have been considered.
However, I want to use the Richmond House scenario to illustrate an important point; that is, that the Government do introduce legislation in specific areas where it is needed. The building regulations of 1985 have now been replaced by new regulations laid in December, which come into force in June. Further consideration is being given to extending the
1492
regulations to include alterations of buildings already in use. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that point.
Obviously I will not be able to cover all the points on housing, education and leisure. But my understanding on the specific point of access to theatres, particularly West End theatres, is that it is being addressed. There are major problems with a great many theatres because they are in the main old buildings. But I understand, and some noble Lords will know, of the adapt fund that was set up in 1989, with funding from both the Government and the Carnegie Trust, which assists with the costs of making arts venues accessible. That relates not just to theatres but also art galleries. That is just another example of one small field in which there can be progress without legislation being necessary.
I want to talk about two areas where substantial progress has been made over the past few years which very clearly illustrates the progress that can be made without legislation. I am sure that most noble Lords will accept that the first and probably most important of these is employment. We do of course have one piece of employment legislation for disabled people; namely, the quota scheme which was mentioned by one noble Lord. It has been in place now for over 40 years, although we acknowledge that it does not work as well as originally intended, not least because the majority of people with a disability choose not to register as disabled. They do not wish to be singled out as in some way different. Quite rightly, they wish to be employed, trained and promoted on their merits.
The best employers are already publicly committed to this philosophy. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who referred to the work of the Employers' Forum of Disability, an organisation of over 50 of the country's leading employers which are committed to good practice in the recruitment and employment of disabled people. Only last month, the employers' forum launched its Agenda for Disability setting out 10 points for action. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Disabled People and my noble friend Lord Ullswater attended the launch of this agenda. I know that they were certainly impressed by what the forum is trying to achieve through its agenda and in other ways.
The Department of Employment works closely with the forum and with many other organisations which can contribute to improving the employment prospects of people with disabilities. These voluntary efforts are also helped by the fact that all the department's employment and training schemes are open to unemployed people with disabilities, often with the entry criteria relaxed and with increased priority. In addition, the department operates a range of special schemes aimed at assisting disabled people to get or keep employment. This includes providing advice and practical help to individuals and to employers.
I acknowledge that some employers, sadly, discriminate against people with disabilities. We believe that progress in overcoming such discrimination in employment can be achieved most effectively by improving awareness of the abilities of disabled

1493
people and dispelling ignorance and prejudice. This will continue to be backed with practical help. The Department of Employment works with industry and many local statutory and voluntary organisations, as well as with individual disabled people, to promote and implement this approach.
The second area I should like briefly to touch on is transport. This is a problem which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, stressed. She referred to the inaccessibility of many forms of public as well as private transport. Here too there is a blend of targeted legislation and co-operation between government, providers and users. There are still shortcomings in the accessibility of the public transport system. That is true of every country in the world. But over the past 10 years, the Department of Transport has worked with manufacturers and transport providers, as well as with organisations of and for disabled people, to introduce considerable improvements.
The key to success is, I believe, to use legislation selectively, and to target it carefully. The transport world provides a very clear example of the benefits of specific rather than general legislation. By focusing on technical standards and specific transport modes it is possible not only to ensure good standards for access but also, most important, common standards of access.
I am sure that the House will have noticed that all new London taxis are equipped to carry wheelchairs. By January 2000 all London taxis are required to be accessible. London is the first capital city in the world to require its taxis to be accessible. I am very pleased that over 60 towns and cities in the United Kingdom have introduced or are planning similar requirements.
To cover other transport needs, the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the Transport Act 1985 and the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 all involve specific duties to take account of the needs of disabled people. In other areas equally good progress has been made without legislative back-up. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, paid some tribute to British Rail. It has set a clear policy internally to provide for disabled passengers and, while progress must still be made in improving access on suburban and regional services, all new rolling stock is now designed to be accessible and all InterCity routes are already fully accessible with the very welcome additional feature on new rolling stock of a wheelchair accessible WC.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I went out of my way to say that I thought British Rail was one of the organisations which has really been trying and has done quite a lot; but, good heavens, there is still a great deal to be done.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those remarks. As I said, the noble Lord did pay some tribute to British Rail and I was trying to acknowledge that tribute.
The combination of education, co-operation and specific legislation is proving effective, and I emphasise that it is only specific legislation that will assist progress. I do not see how general civil rights
1494
legislation, even overseen by the kind of Disablement Commission envisaged by this Bill, could achieve those ends.
Legislation cannot abolish prejudice and ignorance despite the persuasiveness of the arguments produced here today. I continue to have reservations about the effectiveness of general anti-discrimination legislation of this kind.
Several noble Lords acknowledged that the Bill needs amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, specifically said that there were certain aspects that needed amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to the use of county courts and whether that was appropriate. This is obviously neither the time nor place for any such detailed consideration; but, for example right at the beginning of the Bill, I suggest that, fundamentally, the definition of disability is open to a range of interpretations. How would "reasonableness" and "undue hardship" be interpreted? Those are only some examples of specific difficulties which might arise in interpreting the Bill in practice. More generally, we have to ask ourselves whether it would be right to introduce a climate of litigation into the numerous areas of public and private life covered by this Bill, and whether that would benefit disabled people more than the approach I have outlined of combining education, co-operation, and specific legislation where it is needed.
I have listened very carefully to all the arguments which have been put forward during this debate. I note especially the strength of feeling that has been expressed here today. I acknowledge that many of the speakers have considerable knowledge and are extremely well-informed about disability, and some even have personal experience themselves. It is clearly right that we must consider very carefully all that has been said here today about the fundamental issues which are raised by this Bill.
As has been said on various occasions, we are benevolently neutral in our attitude to the Bill. We do not think that it is the right way forward at this time. Nevertheless, I have no intention of opposing Second Reading of this Bill.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that the description of "benevolently opposed" is very much more appropriate than "benevolently neutral"? Quite clearly he is against the passing of this Bill. That is not neutral at all. His position is that he is opposed to it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is up to my right honourable friend and myself to decide on the words we use. I consider that our attitude is one of benevolent neutrality. I have explained why there are problems in the approach as set out in the Bill, but I have said that we are very sympathetic to the aims behind the Bill and the ideas underlying it. We do not think that this Bill is necessarily the right way forward at this time.
2.34 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who spoke in support of the Bill. Apart from the Minister

1495
—and I shall come to him later—all other speeches have been fully in favour of the Bill. I have had a number of letters and apologies from other noble Lords who would have liked to have spoken in the debate today, but who unfortunately could not do so. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, would have liked to have made his maiden speech on the Bill, but he is abroad. The noble Baroness, Lady MacLeod, intended to speak, but I had a telephone call from her this morning to say that she is ill. All speakers have been in favour of the Bill and some very telling evidence was put forward in support of it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for his tribute to my honourable friend in another place for all the work that he has done in this area. The Bill is of course his Bill but has been transposed to this House. All the preliminary work was done by my honourable friend and by his team which includes the majority of the organisations working on behalf of disabled people. We should pay a sincere tribute to all the work that they do.
A number of noble Lords referred to one or two deficiencies in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, was unsure whether or not the county courts were the right medium of redress for employment cases. If we had more time—the Minister indicated that there is unlikely to be sufficient time for the Bill to progress further—it would have been useful to have gone through the Committee stage and looked at the definitions and at the provisions contained in the Bill. With the experience of this House in improving legislation I am sure that we would have been able to make improvements even to this Bill. No one is pretending that the final word has been written or said on the Bill.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He said in his opening remarks that he welcomed the debate because it had given us an opportunity to look at this problem in some detail. He quoted his honourable friend in another place who said that there was much common ground and that the ends that we seek are the same. The noble Lord then seemed to depart from the ends when it came to the means. He confirmed that he was as benevolently neutral as his honourable friend in another place and he said that the Government would give serious thought to the Bill but he was unconvinced that it was the right remedy. He went on to refer to what he saw as the alternative approach. It seemed to me that he was ruling out legislation. I am surprised, because the alternatives could still proceed. The Bill would not interfere with that process but would reinforce the approach that he was suggesting. I am very disappointed with his response.
The noble Lord dealt in some detail with the two areas of employment and transport. He referred to the 50 major companies that are involved in the Employers' Forum of Disability. The work that is being done in this field is very welcome indeed. However, the noble Lord mentioned 50 firms. The Financial Times quotes the top 500 firms, so a good many firms are not involved in this work. As I said in
1496
my introduction, legislation of this kind helps to provide a fair competitive field for those organisations and firms which are trying to eliminate discrimination.
As I indicated, although education and persuasion are excellent, they are slow. We have only to look at the whole of our culture and vocabulary. All of it is full of images which detract from our acceptance of the fact that there is discrimination against disabled people. For example, we talk about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, an "idiot's guide", and "lame ducks". They are all derogatory to the people who have a disability. We use such expressions in our everyday speech. Unless we can really focus on those problems, we shall not be able quickly to eradicate discrimination against disabled people.
The Minister had some doubts about the definition of the word "discrimination" contained in the Bill. Well, all right, we could look at those definitions. However, I think that the definition of indirect discrimination, which has been so valuable in the field of race and sex discrimination in bringing to the fore those unrecognised forms of discrimination and which is contained in the Bill, would be absolutely vital to achieving complete eradication of discrimination in our society.
I hope that the Minister will, as he said, think seriously about the Bill. From what has been said, it sounds as if we may not progress much further before the general election. But I trust that this House will place on record its approval for such a Bill. It could then be picked up after the general election either by the government of the day or by Private Members in this House or in another place. If that were to happen, then our debate today will have made a very useful contribution to that process. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading today.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992
2.42 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 31st January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before introducing this draft instrument, as an owner of agricultural land and managed woodland, I think that it is appropriate that I should declare an interest.
The Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992 will replace the pilot Farm Woodland Scheme, which was introduced in 1988 for an initial three-year trial period. As I shall explain, the new scheme builds on what we have learnt from our experience with its predecessor. It will provide increased financial incentives to farmers to convert land currently in agricultural use to woodland. Equally important, the new arrangements will be very much easier for farmers to understand and simpler for the Government to administer.
The current Farm Woodland Scheme was a product of the ALURE review carried out in 1987.
For the benefit of noble Lords who may not recall this particular acronym, I should explain that it stands for, alternative land use in the rural economy. That review identified forestry as an important potential alternative use of agricultural land in the light of agricultural surpluses. The Farm Woodland Scheme was, therefore, introduced on 1st October 1988 following the passage of the Farm Land and Rural Development Act 1988.
The Farm Woodland Scheme applies to Great Britain and is administered jointly by the agriculture departments and the Forestry Commission. It will remain open to applications until 31st March 1992. It provides establishment grants to farmers for planting woodland on previously productive agricultural land. In addition, annual payments are made to farmers to compensate them for the agricultural income foregone from converting to woodland. Depending on the type of woodland created, these annual payments are made for a period of up to 40 years.
Up to the end of September 1991, applications had been received for some 16,000 hectares to be planted under the farm woodland scheme, of which 12,500 hectares of planting had been approved. Over 19 million new trees have been planted and three-quarters of them are broadleaved species. When one considers that forestry represents a significant new departure for most farmers, those figures can be regarded as encouraging. However, I shall not pretend that that uptake is as much as we hoped for when the scheme was launched in 1988.
A thorough review of this scheme was, therefore, undertaken last year. The main findings were that the objectives, structure and administration of the scheme are too complicated. Furthermore, the financial incentives which are available are insufficient and paid over too long a timescale.
The draft Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992 has been designed to take account of those findings. Careful account has also been taken of the views expressed by interested organisations which were consulted about draft proposals last year. Like its predecessor, the new scheme will apply to Great Britain and will be introduced in Northern Ireland by separate arrangement. The new scheme contains several important changes to make it more attractive to farmers and easier to administer while ensuring that environmental benefits continue to be provided.
The new scheme has more sharply focused objectives. Those are, first, to encourage planting of woodland by farmers who will remain in farming, thereby enhancing the farmed landscape and environment and, secondly, to encourage a productive alternative land use to agriculture.
Administration will be much simplified. There will be a simple two-stage application process. Farmers will apply to the Forestry Commission for establishment grants under its woodland grant scheme. Once they have received approval from the Forestry Commission, they can apply to the appropriate agriculture department for annual payments under the farm woodland premium scheme. That arrangement
1498
recognises that the Forestry Commission is the expert on planting trees while agriculture departments are the experts on farming.
Financial incentives to farmers are substantially improved. They will now be eligible for the full range of establishment grants under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme, including better land supplement where appropriate. Furthermore, the annual payments by agriculture departments have been "front-end loaded" to provide for higher rates of payment to be made over shorter periods, which is what farmers would prefer.
The number of payment categories has been reduced. There will now be just two categories of woodland: those planting more than 50 per cent. by area of broadleaves will receive annual payments for 15 years, while those planting 50 per cent. or less broadleaves will receive payments for 10 years.
Revised maximum limits for areas to be planted will apply. There will be no limit on the number of applications which can be made in respect of each farm. However, planting must not exceed more than half the area of the farm unit. Furthermore, planting of unimproved land in the less favoured areas must not exceed 40 hectares on any unit. Common grazings in the Scottish crofting counties will be eligible under the scheme, but there will be a total limit of 100 hectares for each common grazing area.
A new, more practical definition of "improved grassland" is being introduced. It will be based on the content of productive grass species in the sward. That has the advantage of being easily checked and puts no restriction on the methods used to improve grassland. Equally important, it will ensure that environmentally-sensitive sites are protected.
A three-year rule will apply for land to be eligible. Arable land or improved grassland must have been in that condition for at least three years prior to application. In addition, unimproved land must have been in agricultural use for at least three years beforehand.
What will this new package mean for farmers? I give two examples: first, a farmer in Lincolnshire wishing to plant six hectares of broadleaved woodland on improved grassland would receive some £10,500 in establishment grants from the Forestry Commission and annual payments of £1,500 for 15 years from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; that is, a total of over £33,000. Secondly, a sheep farmer in a disadvantaged area in Wales seeking to plant six hectares of conifer woodland on improved grassland would receive some £7,500 in establishment grants from the Forestry Commission and annual payments of £1,140 for 10 years from the Welsh Office agriculture department: a total of nearly £19,000.
The scheme will not be subject to any planting targets or quotas. However, it will be subject to cash limits. We envisage that sufficient funds should be available to meet all applications but if this turns out not to be the case, we may have to defer approval of some until a later date.
I should explain the position of woodland used for agroforestry or for the production of short-rotation coppice. Woodland to be used for these purposes will

1499
be eligible for establishment grants from the Forestry Commission under its Woodland Grant Scheme. However, such woodland will not be eligible for annual payments under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme. Because the income loss from these forms of production is potentially less than from traditionally managed woodland, it makes sense to target Farm Woodland Premium Scheme funds on traditional woodland. However, the Government recognise that these forms of production hold promise for the future and we are funding research and development on them.
To summarise the position, the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme will build on experience gained from the pilot Farm Woodland Scheme. It will be more attractive to farmers, simpler to understand and operate, and environmentally beneficial. The bringing forward of this measure demonstrates the Government's commitment both to assisting farmers to finding alternative uses for agricultural land, and to improving and enhancing the environment. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 31st January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Cavendish of Furness).
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the order so clearly. Obviously from this side of the House we welcome it. We have always supported the idea of woodland grants. We particularly welcome the front-end loading, which is sensible, as well as the encouragement for broadleaved species.
There is only one question I wish to put to the Minister, but before doing so I should say that I was intrigued by the reference to "grazing constables". I did not know such things existed, but presumably this is a Scottish term. Whether the "grazing" refers to the constable or to the land on which he walks it is not quite clear.
The Minister said that the Government are disappointed with the uptake under the scheme. He referred to applications for 16,000 hectares, of which 12,500 hectares have been approved. How does that compare with the targets the Government gave us at the beginning of the scheme in 1988? From memory, it is only one-third of the figure we were hoping to achieve by this time over the four years. Perhaps the Minister will confirm the target figure and indicate the reason for the lack of uptake which we hope will be put right by the change in the scheme. Other than that question, we welcome the scheme from this side of the House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for the welcome he has given the scheme. I believe that it will hold greater opportunities for woodlands. I am also grateful to him for giving me notice of his question on the amount of planting under the various woodland schemes compared with the Government's target figures. As he said, we expressed disappointment with the previous take-up.
The Government have an indicative target of 33,000 hectares per annum for new woodland planting
1500
in Great Britain and that is the overall figure. In 1991 almost 12,000 hectares were planted. In addition, a limit of 12,000 hectares per annum was set for planting by farmers under the Farm Woodland Scheme. Some 16,000 hectares of new planting have been approved since the scheme was introduced in October 1988. I expect that the substantially improved incentives available under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, together with the better package of grants under the Woodland Grant Scheme, will have a positive impact on planting levels. I expect planting under any scheme to improve as and when the economy shows an upturn. I commend the measure to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Practice on Picketing
2.55 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 4th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, one of the first, and certainly one of the most important, of this Government's step-by-step reforms of industrial relations and trade union law was to make flying pickets unlawful. The 1980 Employment Act removed any trade dispute immunity for a person to picket other than at his or her own place of work, unless he or she is the union official who represents the pickets. To supplement that change in the law we also took powers to issue a statutory code of practice. It is that code—originally issued in 1980—that would be replaced by the revised draft before your Lordships today.
Since 1980 there have been various changes to the law relating to picketing and the organisation of picketing activities. For example, the 1982 Employment Act made it possible to take legal proceedings against a union which organises unlawful picketing. The 1984 Trade Union Act required unions to ballot their members before calling on them to take industrial action; and the 1988 Employment Act gave union members protection against being disciplined by their union for crossing a picket line.
In addition, although scenes of violent and intimidatory picketing had become much less common than in the 1970s, over 10 years had passed since the issue of the code and it was appropriate to review what it said about good practice —that is, above and beyond the requirements of primary law —in respect of the conduct and organisation of picketing. Accordingly, in February 1991 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced his intention to prepare a draft revised code. At the end of July the draft revised code was published for public consultation with responses being invited by the end of October. This Motion now seeks approval of that draft, as modified to take account of comments received during the public consultation period and

1501
laid before the House some three weeks ago. The draft revised code is organised into the same main sections as the present code.
The preamble, while otherwise in a standard form, calls attention to a new feature of the revised code designed to be generally helpful to the reader, that is the use of light grey background to identify and distinguish passages which outline or re-state provisions in primary legislation.
The section on picketing and the civil law reflects changes to relevant employment law since 1980—for example, by giving more emphasis to the requirements which must be satisfied if picketing is to be lawfully organised, for example by a trade union. There are new recommendations about limiting picketing activities where a picket takes place at an entrance or exit of a place of work shared by workers of more than one employer and about choosing locations closest to the place of work being picketed.
The sections on picketing and the criminal law and on the role of the police update the present code to take account of the 1986 Public Order Act. Section 14 of that Act is also mentioned in the section on limiting numbers of pickets as it gives the police powers to impose conditions on public assemblies such as may occur where demonstrators wish to show support for pickets. Otherwise that section is very similar to the equivalent section of the present code. It includes the provision—with added emphasis by highlighting the text—that,
"pickets and their organisers should ensure that in general the number of pickets does not exceed six at any entrance to, or exit from, a workplace; frequently a smaller number will be appropriate".
The section on organisation of picketing restates important good practice recommendations and adds some new ones such as that a picket should not claim to be, and identify itself as, official—that is, supported by a trade union—unless the union is in fact prepared to accept the consequent responsibility for the pickets' activities. It also outlines the new statutory protection which union members now have against being disciplined by their union for crossing a picket line.
The recommendations in the final section—
"Essential supplies, services and operations"—
now recognise that picketing should not be so conducted as to disrupt "activities" (as well as "supplies of goods and services", as in the present code):
"necessary to the maintenance of plant and machinery".
In applying the law since 1980, the courts have, where relevant, been guided by the present code's recommendations, in particular in respect of whether more than six pickets at any workplace entrance would be likely to give rise to fear and intimidation.
The statutory code is a valuable source of information about the law, and of advice about good practice which can help ensure that picketing does as little damage as practicable to good industrial relations. The time has come to revise the present code so that it can continue to make the same contribution in the years to come. The revised code will serve that purpose. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 4th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
3 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear explanation of the draft code on picketing. However, I wonder why it is felt necessary to bring it forward at this particular time. To my knowledge there have been no recent occasions upon which picketing has presented any problem. There have been no scenes outside workplaces, no clashes with the police and nothing remotely resembling the kind of activity of which the Government have complained and to which the Minister referred today. I question, therefore, whether in introducing the code at this time the Government are attempting just before an election to raise the old anti-union issues again. Public opinion polls would appear to indicate that a majority of the population regard unions as a good thing. There seems no justification for the Government's evident belief that they can get more mileage out of an anti-union stance.
That said, the code is in line with existing legislation which has been passed by Parliament. It is, of course, useful to have in a small handbook a summary of the legislation and a guide as to its meaning and to action which unions and their members in dispute may or may not take. I agree with the Minister that that is very clearly set out. The present layout is an improvement.
This House will know that we on these Benches regard the legislation upon which the code is based as one-sided and unacceptable, although I would point out in passing that for many years the TUC's code on picketing limited the number of pickets which ought to be deployed at any one time or at any one place. However, it does not seem to us to be fair that the Government should intervene legislatively so strongly in favour of employers and against those whose only real weapon against exploitation is the collective one of unionisation.
In my view a reasonable Government would at least attempt to put a fair legislative framework in place, acknowledging that individual employees, particularly at times of high unemployment, have virtually no means of redress against unfair treatment by an employer except through union activity. The Minister may point to provisions allowing access to industrial tribunals but, as he knows very well, there have now been decided restrictions on that remedy, both in regard to the length of time an individual must have been in employment before going to an industrial tribunal and in regard to the waiting time before a case reaches an industrial tribunal. The situation is even worse if the individual seeks to go to appeal. Therefore, restrictive legislation with regard to unions on which the code is based simply add to the problems of individuals seeking some semblance of fair treatment.
I shall not comment on the various sections of the code. The Minister well knows our objections to the legislation since we voiced them on many occasions

1503
when the Bills were before this House. However, I repeat that in my view the legislative framework is unfair.
Despite what the Government say, that framework is not largely responsible for what they call improved industrial relations. The reduction in the number of disputes is due largely to the very deep recession and the mounting toll of unemployment. When we are in Government we shall ensure that we have a fair legislative framework—not a framework balanced in favour of the unions or the employers, but a framework which endeavours to be fair to both sides in industrial relations—acknowledging that employees, through their union, have certain rights which are a part of ILO conventions that in the past have been ratified by successive UK governments. However, I offer no objection to the code that is before the House. As has already been stated, it is based on legislation which has been through both Houses.
Lord Knights: My Lords, it had been my intention to speak at rather greater length on this topic than I now propose to do. Clearly the strong views that were held in 1980 when the code was first introduced have long since disappeared. However, of all the multifarious duties imposed by society on its police, the one that causes them the greatest concern is the maintenance of public order. In discharging their responsibilities in that field, it is clearly necessary that at all times the police should be seen to be completely impartial.
The one drawback of this code is that it bears the hallmark of government and to that extent may introduce an element of partiality into a process in which impartiality is of the essence. Ideally, I should like to see a code produced jointly by the TUC, the CBI and/or ACAS, which those bodies would be prepared to police. But, in the absence of that, this code serves a very useful purpose, provided that we bear in mind the fact that occasionally it may be thought to be the code of the police or the Government rather than what one would have hoped; namely, an acceptable compromise between all the parties concerned.
Having said that, the alterations and amendments seem to me to be eminently suitable. In particular I like the distinction which is now drawn between pickets and activities connected with picketing; that is to say, assemblies or meetings, which have always been more difficult to police than picketing itself. With those few comments I am happy to support the proposal.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, welcomes the way in which this draft code on picketing has been put forward. It is in the interests of those undertaking picketing that such a code should be introduced. It is perhaps unfortunate that she should take a code which has had a very useful life for a 10-year period and which, because of the existence of a number of changes in primary legislation, is now being reviewed to be part of anti-union legislation. I altogether reject that concept.
I believe this code to be exactly as I stated in my
1504
opening remarks. It is a fair review of the original code, taking into account the changes in primary legislation since that date. I believe that we now have a fair legislative framework. I should point to the fact that the industrial climate is better now than it has been over the past five years and better than it was in the latter part of the 1970s. The noble Baroness said that that came purely from the pressures of recession in the past year or so. I ask her to examine the figures relating to the number of strikes that have taken place over the past few years. She will see that there have been fewer strikes than even in the last year of the 1970s.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, with his long experience of working with the police, drew attention to their role as outlined in the draft code. He also pointed out that the code bore the fingerprint—if I may use that expression—of government. The document went out to consultation and various amendments were proposed which have been incorporated in the revised draft code on picketing that is now before the House.
The code was brought forward by the Government. However, they have listened to other parties and have sought to make the code the most practical guide for those who are intent on using picketing as a form of persuasion to their colleagues. The code of practice explains the primary law and what the code of good practice should be. I believe that it does so very fairly.
I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1992
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. Their purpose is to increase by 5 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the scheme to those who first become entitled to a payment on or after 1st April 1992. By doing so the Government are meeting their commitment to maintain fully the value of the payments set in 1980 when the scheme started.
Parliament enacted this legislation in 1979 to provide compensation to those suffering from certain dust diseases which developed as a result of their employment and who were unable to obtain compensation through the courts in the normal way. The nature of the diseases covered by this Act means that there can be a period of as much as 20 or 30 years between exposure to the harmful dust and the disease being diagnosed. In that period many of the employers in whose employment the exposure took place may have gone out of business, leaving sufferers with very

1505
distressing illnesses, shortened life spans and no means of obtaining compensation for themselves or their dependants.
The Act is not intended to be used as an alternative to seeking compensation through the courts. It is intended to help those sufferers, and their dependants where the sufferer has died, who are at a disadvantage when seeking to sue a former employer because, by the time he or she realises that they have the disease, the employer no longer exists.
There are three basic conditions for a payment under this compensation scheme. Those are that disablement benefit is payable in respect of the disease; that no court action has been brought nor compensation received in respect of the disease; and that every relevant employer has ceased to carry on business. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is not possible fully to compensate individuals and their families for the suffering and loss but at least the regulations allow us to offer practical and material help when it is most needed.
The Department of Employment makes every possible effort to administer the compensation scheme in a sympathetic way to ensure that those who need the help receive it promptly. It is recognised that each case is an individual tragedy and the department is as generous in interpreting the conditions as the Act and the regulations will allow. Since the Act came into force in 1980, 6,866 applicants have made a claim, 75 per cent. of whom have received payment. The total cost to date has been £30.1 million.
The initial payment regulations set out a scale of payments by age and percentage disability as assessed by the statutory medical hoards. When the scheme was introduced the Government gave an undertaking
1506
to Parliament to review the amounts of compensation payable with the aim of retaining the value of the amounts originally set.
This is now the ninth occasion on which the Government have asked Parliament to increase the rates. Last year we approved an increase of 9 per cent. from April to take account of the movement in the index of retail prices during the preceding 12 months. The proposal this year is for an increase of 5 per cent., again in line with the index of retail prices.
I feel sure that the House will agree with me that the circumstances leading to those payments are to be regretted. I very much welcome the opportunity once again provided by these amending regulations to maintain the value of the compensation payments.
Although the number of claims for dust diseases covered by the Act is now much fewer than when the Act was first introduced, it is a sad fact that claims are still being received by my department. Claims are mainly from those who were exposed to asbestos many years ago before the dangers were fully appreciated. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th February be approved—[12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the regulations. We on this side of the House fully support them as from its inception we fully supported the scheme to which he referred. I am grateful to the Minister for his full explanation of that scheme; it is useful to have it on the record.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past three o'clock.

  CAMBODIA: AID TO THE INTERNALLY DISPLACED
  CAMBODIA: AID TO THE INTERNALLY DISPLACED
  POPULATION ACTIVITIES: CONTRIBUTION TO UN FUND
  POPULATION ACTIVITIES: CONTRIBUTION TO UN FUND
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991
  EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS: DIOCESAN APPLICATIONS
  EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS: DIOCESAN APPLICATIONS
  HEALTH CARE SPENDING IN THE EC
  HEALTH CARE SPENDING IN THE EC